- Utah Supreme Court declined to reinstate 2021 congressional map ahead of election.
- Justices said the Legislature failed to appeal August and November decisions in time.
- Elected officials continue to challenge judge-ordered map in state and federal courts.
The Utah Supreme Court on Friday denied a request by the Legislature to reinstate Utah’s 2021 congressional district map while lawmakers wait to fully appeal the lawsuit over the state’s Proposition 4 redistricting law.
A district court threw out Utah’s electoral boundaries in August, claiming they did not comply with Prop 4 rules. The court installed a map submitted by advocacy groups in November without legislative approval.
Legislators may have appealed these decisions but failed to do so within the 30-day window outlined by statute, the state Supreme Court order said. And lawmakers cannot appeal the entire case until it is finalized.
“We agree with the district court that this case, and its August 25 Order, raise important legal issues that warrant timely appellate review,” the justices said. “But ... here, no claim has been certified as final.”
The justices sided with the League of Women Voters and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, who sued the state in 2022 for bypassing Prop 4 to implement what plaintiffs considered an unfairly partisan map.
How did we get here?
3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson discarded the 2021 map in August because it was the product of SB200, an amended version of Proposition 4, which Gibson declared unconstitutional because it violated voters’ right to alter their government through a ballot initiative.
On Jan. 23, legislative defendants requested a temporary “stay,” or pause, on Gibson’s decision, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on the state’s years-long redistricting saga for the fourth time since 2024.
The court previously ruled against the Legislature on whether they could change initiatives like Prop 4 and whether they correctly advertised a proposed constitutional amendment to change initiative laws.
Defendants argued a stay was warranted to provide certainty for the 2026 election and to resolve the constitutional concerns of Gibson picking a map submitted by advocacy groups instead of lawmakers.
Plaintiffs responded that the Legislature had filed its appeal too late and based it on a misinterpretation of the Utah Constitution, which gives lawmakers the power to “divide the state into congressional … districts.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks one more point of contention between the Legislature and court system as branches of government continue to navigate Prop 4’s fallout more than seven years after it became law.
What is Prop 4
“Neither the Utah Constitution nor the U.S. Constitution empowers courts to impose a map that elected representatives did not enact,” Utah Senate President Stuart Adams said “Once again, the chaos continues, but we will keep defending a process that respects the Constitution and ensures Utah voters across our state have their voices respected.”
Prop 4 created a commission to recommend electoral boundaries each decade, established guidelines that barred partisan gerrymandering and opened the Legislature up to lawsuits if they did not comply.
The Legislature has sought to reform or dismiss Prop 4 since it was narrowly approved by voters in 2018, saying it violates provisions of the Utah and U.S. constitutions that give map-drawing power to them.
In 2020, lawmakers amended Prop 4 in a compromise deal with its sponsors. But when lawmakers chose a map spitting up Salt Lake County Democrats a year later, supporters of the initiative turned to the courts.
“Utah voters deserve fair representation and clarity heading into our elections,” said Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah. “We are encouraged that the court dismissed this improper appeal and allowed the process to move forward without disruption to voters or election administrators.”
Federal court ruling still outstanding
Since Gibson’s ruling in November, which rejected legislators’ attempt to comply with Prop 4 in favor of one drawn by plaintiffs, Republicans have also attempted to use all legal tools at their disposal.
On Feb. 2, U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens and Celeste Maloy joined 11 local leaders in filing a federal lawsuit alleging that the state’s court-ordered congressional map violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Arguments were made to a federal panel on Wednesday to judges who appeared skeptical of both sides. Utah’s predicament, they seemed to agree, appeared to put the state in uncharted constitutional waters.
Owens and Maloy asked the court to allow Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson to administer the 2026 election using the 2021 map. The plaintiffs in the state case argued that Gibson had acted properly under federal statute.
The three-judge panel seemed hesitant to issue a ruling before the Utah Supreme Court issued a decision on the Legislature’s appeal. But they suggested they would respond by Monday just in case the state must revert to the 2021 map before the candidate filing period.