Utah’s redistricting controversy is truly bipartisan, as both parties are increasingly frustrated and angry with each other. Your columnists delve into the most recent intrigue.
Last week, the Utah GOP fielded a referendum to repeal the congressional boundary map drawn by the Republican-dominated Legislature. What is the referendum process, and what are the impacts on the election process?
Cowley: Lt. Gov. Henderson called it chaos. I’d call it bedlam. There are so many simultaneous political maneuvers happening at once, it’s hard for even insiders to keep it all straight. Each side is trying to either strengthen its case for inevitable Supreme Court arguments or use rushed tactics that put its preferred map in front of voters before the filing deadline.
The GOP has the support of “Trump world,” as evidenced by Don Jr’s post on X bolstering their efforts. Unions have recently demonstrated that Utah’s referendum threshold is achievable. Signature gatherers will circulate packets for both the indirect initiative and referendum together, making that threshold more attainable.
If the GOP is successful in gathering the 140,000 valid signatures for the referendum, it will put “Map C” on hold for this election while simultaneously placing it on the 2026 ballot. Republicans are calculating the pros and cons of having redistricting on the ballot, weighing what impact it will have on Republican versus Democratic turnout.
There is more at stake in this election than just political boundaries, as elections, the return of legislative authority to amend initiatives and the union referendum will also be on the ballot.
Pignanelli: “Redistricting is a deeply political process.” — Thomas E. Mann, Brookings Institution
Science fiction fans of my generation remember the complex three-dimensional chess game in the original Star Trek series. For political observers, a five-dimensional chess game is being played in Utah, but with multiple players (Republican lawmakers, Democrats, the courts, both national parties and the Trump world). The new ballot measures confirmed this intricacy.
For this legally trained political hack, these new actions are fascinating chess moves. The Supreme Court recently held that the Legislature cannot amend a statewide initiative impacting government reform. Thus, will a statewide referendum (which has different ballot placement requirements) repealing “Map C” be given the same level of authority? If so, then what maps are to be used? If not, initiatives will be deemed “super laws” almost impossible to alter.
The GOP strategy is unique in state and national constitutional politics. Not since the Netflix series “The Queen’s Gambit” has chess been so intriguing.
The GOP also unveiled its “indirect initiative” effort, forcing a vote of the Legislature to repeal the “Better Boundaries” proposition (which passed in 2018, establishing a commission to draw political boundaries). What is an indirect initiative and what is its potential impact?
Cowley: The indirect initiative has never been used before. It requires half as many signatures as a referendum (70,000 still with a geographic disbursement requirement) to force a vote of the Legislature, in this case, to consider the repeal of Prop 4.
Here’s how I see some of these maneuvers playing out:
If the indirect initiative is successful in getting on the ballot (questions are circulating if it will be invalidated before they really get it off the ground), it is likely the Legislature will support repealing Prop 4, returning us to the existing maps at least temporarily, while Better Boundaries supporters will undoubtedly file a lawsuit.
If the referendum reaches the required number of signatures, it also returns us to the existing maps for this election, puts Map C on the ballot, and, regardless of the election outcome, is still likely to end up in a lawsuit.
Even if either or both GOP-led measures succeed, the Legislature will still file an appeal of Judge Gibson’s pending decision to approve Map C or not in protest of the process.
A push could be made to expedite rulings, but the courts only act so fast. The Legislature may need to look at delaying the filing deadline to March, where it has historically been.
All roads lead to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, voters and candidates are left waiting to see which political tactic wins the battle for the upcoming election while the longer map war wages on.
Pignanelli: Technically, this process is a valid way for Utahns to compel legislative action. But will the Utah Supreme Court (and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court — where everything is heading) hold this less authoritative than a traditional initiative? The mere existence of this indirect initiative and the referendum may compel changes in election laws to allow more time for map development. These are more chess moves.
What is the likelihood the Congressional maps change yet again?
Cowley: It’s anyone’s guess which maps will be utilized in the upcoming election. The Legislature will utilize the argument that Judge Gibson’s map-drawing requirements were haphazard and hasty. Even if Utah is stuck with Map C for the upcoming election cycle, it’s likely to be voided by higher courts for future elections.
Pignanelli: No reliable guide exists to predict what maps voters will be using a year from now. All incumbent and potential candidates must be nimble in planning and strategy.