- The Utah Legislature plans to appeal redistricting lawsuit to the Utah Supreme Court.
- Gov. Spencer Cox will call a special session to discuss changing candidate deadlines.
- Lawmakers also plan to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.
Utah legislative leadership announced Tuesday they will take immediate action to end the latest round of litigation in the state’s multiyear redistricting legal battle so they can appeal the entire case to the Utah Supreme Court.
Three dozen Republican lawmakers gathered at the Utah Capitol to outline their next steps two weeks after 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson rocked Utah politics by selecting a congressional district map for the 2026 midterm elections.
Gibson rejected legislators’ effort to draw a new map in compliance with her interpretation of Utah’s 2018 Better Boundaries initiative and instead selected a map submitted by the nonprofit groups who sued the Legislature in 2022.
In an effort to reverse Gibson’s Nov. 10 decision, Senate President Stuart Adams and Speaker Mike Schultz said they are asking for a permanent injunction to rapidly secure a final ruling from Gibson so they are able to file a full appeal to the state’s highest court.
“This is a defining moment for Utah’s governance,” said Schultz, R-Hooper. “Two branches of government, those branches chosen by Utah voters, are standing together to correct this wrong, to restore order and ensure our system works the way our constitution was intended.”
The Legislature decided on its course of action in consultation with Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who will call lawmakers into special session on Dec. 9 to discuss whether to postpone candidate filing deadlines to ensure there is enough time to adjust the state’s electoral boundaries yet again.
During his monthly PBS broadcast on Tuesday, Cox voiced support for the Legislature’s appeal and expressed hope that the Utah Supreme Court will take a different approach from their decision last summer which made some ballot initiatives immune from legislative changes.
The governor also reemphasized the value of the judiciary as an independent branch of government. The governor, a former attorney, said his administration will always follow the “constitutional order” and will never disobey judicial orders.
How did we get here?
Over the past 18 months, Utah courts have ruled that the state’s GOP majority violated the Utah Constitution by amending the Better Boundaries initiative known as Proposition 4 in 2020 and by skirting the law’s partisan fairness requirements in 2021.
While legislators begrudgingly complied with Gibson’s orders to redraw the state’s congressional seat boundaries in October, they argued that courts should not have any role in the redistricting process, which the state constitution places under legislative authority.
GOP lawmakers erupted when Gibson ultimately rejected their remedial map, which made two more competitive districts, in favor of one submitted by plaintiffs, creating four uncompetitive districts, including a +20 Democratic seat in northern Salt Lake County.
“By design or by default, Judge Gibson has authorized the most partisan, and thus the most gerrymandered map in the history of the state of Utah,” said Adams, R-Layton. “I assume she didn’t intend or set out to gerrymander herself, but anyone who looks at the donut-hole map sees very clearly it’s gerrymandered.”
State election officials have already begun adjusting the local election processes to accommodate the new map. But legislative leaders said they still believe there is a possibility they can succeed in court to throw out the so-called “Map 1″ before next November.
Legislators committed on Tuesday to attempt to permanently resolve the disagreement over separation of powers in the state by placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot that clarifies their ability to amend or repeal ballot initiatives, including those that alter the structure of government.
This would be similar to the Amendment D option lawmakers planned to include on the 2024 ballot which was voided by Gibson in September of 2024 because she said it did not meet the threshold for ballot language clarity and for adequate advertising.
What the plaintiffs are saying
Lawmakers have framed the state’s redistricting saga as an effort by outside interest groups to exert influence on the state by bypassing elected representatives through the courts. But proponents of Gibson’s decision say they just want the Legislature to follow anti-gerrymandering laws.
“While the Legislature insists on yet another appeal, we look forward to making the same common-sense arguments based firmly on the Utah constitution that we’ve made at every stage of this litigation,” said Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
“If they decide to pursue a constitutional amendment, which only the legislature can propose, then Utahns will show how proud we are to have a constitution that gives a voice to the people and we’ll continue to protect that right in court, at the ballot box, and in all our work.”
Utah Democratic legislators condemned their colleagues’ call for a special session in December over redistricting. They expressed support for Gibson’s ruling and said it came as a result of the Legislature’s map failing to comply with Proposition 4 and the plaintiffs’ map meeting the criteria.
As both sides accuse the other of gerrymandering, Cox said he was surprised by how hard the Legislature tried to follow Proposition 4 in October, and said the impact of the debate extends far beyond redistricting to the way Utah laws are created and improved.
Before the Utah Supreme Court’s 2024 decision, ballot initiatives were the same as any law — they could be modified, replaced or removed by the Legislature. But the high court’s ruling last year “turned all of that on its head,” according to Cox, making ballot initiatives “quasi-constitutional.”
“This is just good governance,” Cox said. “Completely putting aside anything related to redistricting. I’m less worried about redistricting than I am about that piece.”