I have been a registered Republican in Utah for 50 years. I have also been a Deseret News print subscriber for nearly that long. I am distressed that amid the heated critiques of the recent rulings of Judge Dianna Gibson, scant attention has been paid to why fairness in redistricting matters.
I am also a recently retired Utah trial attorney with 42 years of experience. Our American trial procedures have a great virtue: All trial participants get to be heard and have their points considered in a meaningful way. That virtue helps to preserve peace, even when a party loses. We live in a pluralistic society, and it is not possible for everyone’s preferred choices to be enacted. But fundamental to preserving a civil society with at least relative harmony is the notion that everyone affected by decisions should be heard in a meaningful manner before final decisions are reached.
That is what Proposition 4 was designed to accomplish: a fair chance for everyone’s votes not only to be counted but also to not be unfairly diluted by procedures designed to preserve the power of the majority group. This principle of fairness for the entire electoral populace demands higher priority than loyalty to the power of any partisan political party.
Even as a member of the majority party, my sense of justice and entitlement is enhanced when I know that my party’s election victories have been achieved in a manner that was fair to all. If my party’s election wins are achieved through procedures that unfairly stack the deck in favor of the group that I identify with, then such wins lose much, if not all, of their integrity and effectiveness. To be most meaningful, my group’s wins must be fairly obtained. Otherwise, the risk rises that societal harmony fractures to the degree that peaceful coexistence is threatened.
That is the primary reason why Prop 4’s procedures ensuring fairness in elections must be preserved. Ultimately, that is what Judge Gibson’s rulings accomplished, in harmony with precepts of governing law.
It is not fair to criticize her rulings unless one first takes the time and effort to read them in full. She labored diligently to carefully analyze and address all the points raised by all interested parties. That was the primary reason her lengthy opinions took as long as they did to be made.
Those who criticize that timing have overlooked the incredible effort she made and the limited resources available to her to write her opinions. Unlike federal judges, who each have three or more clerks to help them with researching and writing their opinions, and unlike the five Utah Supreme Court justices, who also have multiple clerks to help them, Judge Gibson had only one clerk to help her — a clerk she also shared with another judge. Our Utah Supreme Court, with all of its greater resources, still needed over one full year from when it agreed to review just two issues in this redistricting case to publish its opinion.
Judge Gibson understandably needed all the time it took to rule on the many more issues presented to her for decision.
Criticizing her opinions on the basis that they were made by a supposedly “unelected” judge is not only a cheap shot but is also factually false. After being nominated by Republican Gov. Herbert in 2018 and then confirmed unanimously by a heavily Republican Senate, she faced and won a retention election in 2022.
Moreover, she was well qualified by many years of training and experience to hear and decide the difficult issues presented to her — issues she did not choose. Largely forgotten is that in her earliest rulings before the parties appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, she ruled in favor of our Utah legislators by dismissing one key point raised by the private party plaintiffs; a point on which the Utah Supreme Court reversed her and required her to readdress that issue.
I do not know Judge Gibson and have never appeared before her. But I have read her opinions and find them to be well supported by sound legal reasoning, in harmony with our Utah Constitution and the rigorous requirements of the statutory law enacted by Prop 4. The neutral and non-partisan requirements of Prop 4 will best preserve for us a society where all can believe their voices are not only heard but also given appropriate weight.