Final arguments in the yearslong anti-gerrymandering conflict in Utah were given Friday in front of a federal district court judge.
After more than three hours of oral arguments and briefings in a nearly filled courtroom in Salt Lake City, 3rd District Court Judge Dianna Gibson said she would take the “matter under advisement” and come to a ruling as quickly as possible due to Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson’s request of having the 2026 congressional election electoral maps finalized by Nov. 1 of this year.
Background on Utah’s gerrymandering conflict
The lawsuit, brought against the Utah Legislature by the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, was filed in 2022 in the 3rd Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County. The crux of the case accuses Utah lawmakers of disregarding a ballot initiative by anti-gerrymandering group Better Boundaries — Proposition 4 — they say was created to ensure fair voter maps, which was adopted in 2018.
In the 2020 legislative session, a bill, SB200, was proposed and enacted to “address provisions,” ultimately turning the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission created by Prop 4 into an advisory board. In 2021, when new congressional district maps were formed, the League of Women Voters of Utah filed a complaint accusing the state of “diluting (ing) the voting strength of some voters” — Democrats.
In the lawsuit, the two women’s groups accused state lawmakers of removing the people of Utah’s right to alter their government through reform.
They also said the maps violated the Utah Constitution.
In 2023, the Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether state law allowed courts to rule on partisan gerrymandering and whether the legislature’s repeal of Proposition 4 was unconstitutional. The court concluded that, “The people’s right to alter or reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from government infringement, including legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement of the initiative in a manner that impairs the reform enacted by the people. Thus, an alleged violation of the people’s exercise of these rights presents a legally cognizable claim on which relief may be granted.”
Friday’s arguments
“I think there is no dispute here that Proposition 4 was adopted by initiative, and there’s no genuine dispute that its subject matter is something that counts for government reform,” said Aseem Mulji, an attorney for the Campaign Legal Center, who is also representing the plaintiffs in the case. He added that there’s nothing more “obviously a reform than a law addressing a system of how elected representatives are elected.”
The plaintiffs asked Gibson to invalidate the current congressional maps and block parts of SB200 that established a redistricting process separate from the voter-approved initiative. If Gibson ruled in their favor, they requested new maps be created that aligned with Prop 4.
The state’s legal representative, Tyler Green, said Friday that SB200 was created to curb concerns that Prop 4 violated the Utah Constitution. The bill was developed through bipartisan efforts with the intent to be fair.
Green urged Gibson to first determine whether lawmakers unlawfully disregarded voters’ will when they passed the redistricting law and later approved the congressional maps. If that is the case, further considerations will follow.