Utah’s redistricting authority belongs to the Legislature. That structure was already strained by the Utah Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in League of Women Voters v. Utah Legislature. What happened afterward under Judge Dianna Gibson went far beyond routine judicial administration or ordinary procedural mistakes.
It was a sequence of decisions that cannot be explained as oversight or delay. Each step limited public involvement, restricted legislative options and positioned the plaintiffs and their consultants to secure the map they wanted.
Normal procedural irregularities are corrected on appeal. What occurred here was not normal. It was a pattern of choices that shaped the outcome long before the ruling was issued.
After the Supreme Court remanded the case in July 2024, the court took no meaningful action for 13 months. That delay allowed Utah’s 2024 elections to proceed under maps the judge later invalidated. This was not a difficult or technical legal question. It was a statewide case requiring timely resolution. Prolonged inaction guaranteed that by the time the court moved, the Legislature would be forced to work under intense time pressure.
When Judge Gibson finally acted in August 2025, she ordered the Legislature to produce new maps in roughly 30 days during a non-session period. That timeline left no realistic space for public hearings, detailed analysis or community input. The plaintiffs and their consultants, by contrast, had months to refine their proposed maps. The imbalance was created by the court and benefited only one side.
The court then held two days of hearings in late October. Both sides presented maps. But there was no period for post-hearing review and no opportunity to address lingering questions. Late on the night of Nov. 10, only minutes before the lieutenant governor’s certification deadline, the judge issued a 76-page ruling requiring the state to adopt the plaintiffs’ map. The timing made it impossible to file an emergency stay before the statutory cutoff.
A ruling issued at 11:40 p.m. on the final day available is not an administrative accident. It is a deliberate choice that prevents review by any other branch. The opportunity for the Legislature or the appellate courts to respond was removed by design.
These actions led to a result in which Utah’s congressional boundaries were not approved through the legislative process or subjected to meaningful public scrutiny. Instead, the plaintiffs’ NGO and their consultants effectively determined the map for all Utahns because the court’s timing and deadlines left no alternative.
This matters for every Utahn. Redistricting affects representation for the entire state. A process that limits public participation, compresses legislative deliberation and blocks timely appeals does not protect voters. It prevents them from having a meaningful role in decisions that shape congressional districts for the next decade.
Utah’s Constitution allows impeachment for malfeasance in office. That standard applies when an official abuses procedural tools to control outcomes and prevent oversight. Judge Gibson’s handling of this case shows a consistent pattern of doing exactly that. This was not an interpretive disagreement about the law. It was an intentional manipulation of timing, process and statutory deadlines to force the adoption of one side’s map without effective review.
Appeals will address the underlying legal questions. Impeachment addresses conduct that obstructs the separation of powers. Utah’s system depends on each branch remaining within its constitutional limits. When a judge abuses procedural control to block oversight, the Legislature has a responsibility to act.
The House should do so to protect the integrity of Utah’s elections and the proper role of Utah voters in determining their representation.