- House Speaker Mike Schultz said Legislature intends to appeal redistricting case to Utah Supreme Court next week.
- Lawmakers have waited for 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson to issue a final judgement, which she has not done.
- Gibson questioned why lawmakers have waited so long to appeal, and said clarity is needed for the 2026 elections.
Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz said next week Republican lawmakers will finally make an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court in the redistricting case that has thrown the 2026 congressional elections into uncertainty.
The appeal will focus on an Aug. 25 ruling that tossed out the congressional district map approved by the Legislature in 2021, and that ordered the Legislature to draw a new map compliant with the state’s Proposition 4 anti-gerrymandering law, Schultz told the Deseret News.
Legislative leadership has been promising to challenge the outcome of the state’s yearslong redistricting saga since 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson on Nov. 10 selected electoral boundaries drawn by nonprofit plaintiffs to create a +20 Democratic district in Salt Lake County.
While they have accused Gibson of judicial activism, GOP lawmakers have yet to request the higher court to weigh in to determine whether Gibson overstepped her authority by ordering lawmakers to draw a “remedial” map, and then rejecting it as “an extreme partisan gerrymander.”
Lawmakers have been waiting for Gibson to finalize the case before filing an appeal because without a final judgement legislative defendants would be forced to make their arguments under tougher legal thresholds that would have been more difficult to meet, according to Schultz.
“To get the House, the Senate and the governor, and everybody, to agree on everything, it’s not an easy task,” Schultz said. “We think it is a better legal strategy to take the more sure case than to go for the higher standard. That’s why, ultimately, it was decided to go for the full appeal.”
Gibson: Why the long wait?
In an order filed on Friday, Gibson granted the Legislature’s request to finalize portions of the case addressed in her Aug. 25 ruling, which repealed the Legislature’s 2020 changes to Proposition 4, threw out the map they approved in 2021 and reestablished Proposition 4 in its original form.
The order allows lawmakers to appeal these rulings under normal procedures. But Gibson denied another request to make a final judgement on the case as a whole because she said she has not resolved all the disagreements between defendants and plaintiffs over the map she picked on Nov. 10.
The judge said she could not close the case until she had responded to all of the requests for relief filed by the plaintiffs, which include the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. A resolution to these concerns “could be months to years away,” she wrote.
But Gibson argued this should not stop the Legislature from appealing the case. Gibson said she also wants more clarity from the Utah Supreme Court on whether her rulings accurately interpret the Constitution, and she questioned why lawmakers have postponed their appeal for so long.
“They have offered no legitimate explanation for failing to do so when they had the chance,” Gibson said. “Until there is a final decision on these legal issues from our Supreme Court, there will be a cloud on Utah’s congressional elections and an open question regarding the power of the Legislature and the power of the people.”
What’s the case about?
Plaintiffs argue that the GOP-controlled Legislature violated the Utah Constitution in 2020 by substantially changing Proposition 4 from the original intent of the ballot initiative narrowly approved by voters in 2018, and by subsequently approving a map that did not meet Proposition 4 criteria.
During the summer of 2024, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers could not repeal or significantly amend ballot initiatives that seek to alter or reform government. Based on this ruling, Gibson ordered lawmakers to draw a new map and became the final authority on whether the map was legal.
Republicans, including Sen. Mike Lee, Gov. Spencer Cox and Utah Attorney General Derek Brown, have argued that this precedent threatens the separation of powers in the state by creating a new category of “super laws” that in some cases cannot be changed by the people’s elected representatives.
But Gibson has so far sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that lawmakers’ attempt to draw a new map in October disproportionately benefitted the Republican Party by dividing the Democratic vote in Salt Lake County. Like Gibson, plaintiffs in the case are anxiously awaiting an appeal.
“In reading the opinion, it appears the judge was as confused as we were about why the Legislature had not already appealed,” Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah, told the Deseret News.
“We continue to feel confident about the strength of our case and as we have done from the beginning, will continue to oppose the Legislature’s efforts to undermine the will of the voters.”
Who is to blame?
But, according to Schultz, it is Gibson’s series of orders, shifting constitutionally mandated map-drawing authority from the legislative branch to the judiciary, that has undermined the will of the voters.
Beyond her rulings, Gibson has made it harder for the Legislature to adequately appeal the case because she has repeatedly blown past self-imposed deadlines or pushed right up against electoral timelines, Schultz said.
In a previous interview with the Deseret News, Cox said there was no excuse for Gibson to take as long as she did to provide her initial ruling in August, as well as her ruling in November that installed a map that was not approved by the Legislature.
“It’s OK to disagree with logic of the case. I do very, very strongly. I think it was a mistake,” Cox said. “I disagree with the decision, but the timing plus the decision is what makes it so hard for justice to fairly play out.”
Cox called a special legislative session on Dec. 9 where lawmakers voted along party lines to issue a resolution rejecting the state’s court-ordered congressional map and to amend candidate and legal timelines to pave the way for a full appeal of the redistricting case.
Pointing out the constitutional concerns of an unelected judge picking voting districts with the help of an ideological nonprofit group is Republicans’ strongest argument, which they aim to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, according to Schultz.
But since Gibson has still not delivered a final judgement to close the redistricting case, legislative defendants are left to appeal only her rulings that address lawmakers’ ability to amend laws that alter or reform government. On this issue, the Utah Supreme Court has already made its stance clear, Schultz said.
“It’s disheartening what she did; she gave the final judgment on her August decision, not her November decision,” Schultz said. “Based off of the Supreme Court’s ruling of last summer, I think we probably know what the Supreme Court’s going to say there.”
Legislative defendants will file another appeal once Gibson gives a final judgement on her Nov. 10 ruling creating a deeply Democratic seat, Schultz said. “The problem is that ... given her time frame, and the way she’s been so slow on this, it could be six months.”