- SB1011 includes three tests for determining partisan symmetry in congressional maps.
- An original version of the bill included only one test.
- All tests in SB1011 are pass/fail tests.
As the Legislature prepares to vote on a proposed congressional map, both the House and the Senate have passed legislation that would put in state law how maps should be tested to show they represent voter intent under Proposition 4.
Democrats pushed back on the new legislation, saying the tests are not in line with what voters wanted the proposition.
The bill, SB1011, was sponsored by Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove. Originally, the bill provided only one test, but after receiving feedback, the senator presented a substitute that provides three tests for “partisan symmetry.” The three tests provided in the bill are the Partisan Bias Test, Ensemble Analysis and Mean-Median Difference Test.
“So what this does is it provides objective measures for purposes of measuring whether or not a map is unduly partisan,” Brammer said.
During a special session of the Legislature held on Monday, SB1011 passed through the Senate by a vote of 22-7 and through the House with a vote of 55-18.
“The language of Proposition 4 provides that a map may not favor or disfavor in any political party, and it asks that the best available data and scientific and statistical methods, including measures of partisan symmetry be used to assess whether the redistricting map abides by that requirement,” he added.
He also said that because of the nonspecific language in Proposition 4, an initiative that created an independent redistricting commission to draw congressional maps that avoid partisan gerrymandering, 3rd District Court Judge Dianna Gibson provided discretion to the Legislature in determining what tests are used to determine partisan symmetry.
Sen. Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, spoke against the bill, saying the partisan bias test is not a good metric and that “in a state like Utah it is even more problematic.”
She also added that she believes this bill alters Proposition 4. “Altering Prop 4 will be in violation of Prop 4 and what those decisions have said by codifying any type of test, it’s actually in violation of Prop 4,” she said.
What does SB1011 do?
According to a release from the Senate, this bill:
- Establishes a clear, objective and data-driven pass/fail test to determine whether a map meets the test of partisan symmetry.
- Minimize ambiguous language, giving Utahns and courts clear and workable standards.
- Reduces the likelihood of prolonged litigation.
- Enhances transparency, consistency and accountability in the redistricting process.
When the bill was being presented in the House, Rep. Nelson Abbott, R-Orem, introduced a substituted version of the bill that did not include the Mean-Median Difference test. That version failed in the House and they voted to pass the version with all three tests.
All three of the tests in the legislation are all pass/fail tests.
Sen. Jen Plumb, D-Salt Lake City, spoke about how testing is a very nuanced process and all tests that are necessary should be able to be used.
“If we codify the use of any specific test, it’s not allowing us to do that which we should do, which is doing a very thorough, complete and appropriate inspection of maps going forward,” Plumb said.
Throughout the Senate’s discussion of the bill, multiple lawmakers shared that they have received a lot of messages about this legislation from constituents.
In the House, Rep. Doug Owens, D-Millcreek, spoke against the bill, saying: “I think we need to tread lightly. The courts are a co-equal branch in our constitutional system of government and I think we ought to treat that decision with more respect and not pass this bill.”
The House sponsor Rep. Norman Thurston, R-Provo, said, “What this bill does is it codifies tests that have been widely used to address those issues so that we know, that everybody knows, how to do it. Everybody can test their own maps, they can test future maps, they can test past maps.”
When asked about the judges’ intentions for testing partisan symmetry, Brammer said he thinks Gibson was wise in saying “our role as the courts is to determine whether or not the process was followed. It is not the role of the court to pick political winners or losers.”
“There’s been some concern about whether we can codify the test,” said Sen. Scott Sandall, R-Tremonton. “That, to me, seems perfectly appropriate. That’s the way the Legislature speaks, is through codification.”