The Utah Legislature held a very impactful special session this week. We dive deeper into what happened and how Utahns will be affected.
New congressional maps will drive new dynamics in the upcoming election. What are insiders saying about the new boundaries? How will Judge Gibson’s decision regarding Map C affect the process?
Cowley: Republican lawmakers are frustrated to have been forced to draw new maps on an impossible timeline with very little public input. This mandate, as they perceive it, is based on judicial rulings contrary to the state constitution, which requires the Legislature to “divide the state” into congressional districts.
Now that the Legislature has begrudgingly complied, the ball is back in Judge Gibson’s court. There are three possible outcomes, all of which result in appeals and further court proceedings. She may approve the new legislatively created maps, draw her own or implement ones proposed by the plaintiffs.
Sen. Brady Brammer’s special session bill, SB1011, makes the latter two a bit less likely, but never say never when attempting to predict the judiciary. If she accepts the maps passed by the Legislature, Better Boundaries organizers will appeal or at least file a new lawsuit challenging Brammer’s bill.
Regardless of which option the judge chooses, the Legislature will pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court to correct this judicial precedent. This case could very well go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which means there is a possibility that new maps (drawn by the Legislature, judiciary or activists) don’t last past the upcoming election cycle.
Sen. Brammer’s bill is brilliant. Previously, seven criteria were used to draw maps, but there is no hierarchy to those criteria. A map may have little population variation and follow geographic boundaries, but it splits 20 cities. Determining which is more important is subjective. The real genius of this bill is that it imposes tests suggested by Democrats and even discussed by the original Better Boundaries committee. Be careful what you wish for.
Pignanelli: “At no moment in American history has redistricting …escaped controversy.” — Lee Drutman
This old political hack is amused by all the commotion over membership in a dysfunctional institution. The current Congress has enacted only 36 bills so far. (In 45 days, the Utah Legislature usually passes more than 500 bills.) Also, the federal government remains shut down due to congressional inaction.
The special session introduced a new dynamic to Utah once only seen in other states: drawing maps under judicial oversight. Observers noted that Sen. Brammer’s bill to implement three tests was a shrewd strategy, as two of them were suggested by Democrats earlier in the process. Judge Gibson must navigate this legislation in her ruling.
Democrats offered reasonable criticism while Republicans provided a compelling rationale. Although there were emotional pleas from both sides, the entire process was conducted in a civil manner. The National Democratic Party is asserting that the new map offers opportunities to gain one or even two seats. Political observers question how this statement supports claims of extreme gerrymandering.
As Renae notes, future judicial deliberations are likely, thereby cementing Utah’s place in America’s 237-year-old redistricting battle.
Will the recent partisan wrangling in the media have any impact on the 2026 elections and beyond?
Cowley: New maps will change the course of the election. They make CD4 competitive, prompting speculation that Congressman Kennedy may run in CD3, pitting two Republican incumbents against one another. New or familiar faces may seize electoral opportunities. Insiders are already speculating whether Brian King or Ben McAdams may run. Lastly, incumbents who have spent the last two or more years connecting with their constituency will have a new swath of voters to introduce themselves to, which comes with a hefty price tag.
Pignanelli: As Renae notes, the new map (or its rejection) will impact congressional elections in 2026. National Democrats may target additional resources, which could help some down-ballot candidates. Otherwise, the redistricting will not be an issue for voters next November.
Judicially mandated redrawing of congressional districts has dominated news coverage, but which of the 17 total bills heard do you believe was most significant?
Cowley: Several bills were touted as technical cleanups, meriting little debate. There was one bill not scrutinized nearly enough: HB1005.
This is a continuation of HB356 and is aimed squarely at Summit County. It forces the county to move from at-large county council seats to 100% districted seats. Forms of county government vary greatly across the state, so it’s hard to find a cogent argument as to why Summit is being singled out.
As someone who lives in an unincorporated part of Summit County, the original bill effectively reduced my representation in local government. Instead of having five council members I can call with concerns regarding garbage collection or cows out on the road, I will now only have one elected official to hear my weighty concerns. (Note: My firm represents Summit County.)
Pignanelli: SB1003 is a veto override of SB296, which gives the governor the authority to appoint the chief justice and establishes term limits. As Renae observed, “It isn’t every day a governor turns down more power and the Legislature responds with, ‘No, really, we insist you take it.’”