Judge in redistricting case denies Legislature’s request to pause redrawing congressional maps

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — Last week, the Utah Legislature filed a request for a stay on a Third District Court judge’s order that they must redraw congressional district maps in 30 days. After hearing arguments, the judge denied their request for a stay.

On Augst 25, Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that the Utah Legislature unconstitutionally overruled a citizen ballot initiative by enacting their own maps, and she ordered the Legislature to propose new maps within 30 days of that ruling, meaning that they have a September 25 deadline.

The lower court ruling found that the Legislature overrode Proposition 4, a citizen ballot initiative prohibiting gerrymandering, by instituting the 2021 Congressional Map through H.B. 2004. Judge Gibson ruled that Prop 4 is the law of the land on redistricting in Utah and that the Legislature does not have sole authority on redistricting.

Judge Gibson denied the Legislature’s request for a stay on the order to draw up new maps, while also recognizing that the ruling’s timing presents challenges for the Legislature to design a new congressional map complying with Prop 4 and to appeal the ruling before the 2026 midterm elections.

However, she also found that it is entirely possible for the Legislature to develop a new congressional district map in time for the midterms, and that it is possible for all appeals to be resolved before the 2026 midterm elections as well.

On top of that, she wrote that the people of Utah have voted in two elections under maps that were enacted in defiance of the people’s will, and they are entitled to vote in the 2026 election with a congressional plan that complies with Prop 4.

“By granting a stay and proceeding with the 2026 election under the current 2021 Congressional Plan, this court would be sanctioning the Legislature’s violation of the people’s constitutional right to reform their government through redistricting legislation.” Gibson wrote. “It would sanction the wholesale repeal of Proposition 4 and would irreparably harm the people of Utah.”

Judge Gibson heard arguments for the stay from the Legislature at a status conference on Friday, which came after she denied the Legislature’s pre-emptive request for a stay that they filed last year. However, she also clarified on Friday that the ruling on the pre-emptive request was not her position on all stays, so she considered this request as well.

The Legislature argued that Gibson made an error in her initial ruling without explaining how, and so she rejected that argument. They also argued that the timing makes it difficult for the Legislature to design a new map in time, and in response, Gibson requested the Lt. Governor’s office to push back the November 1 deadline if possible.

Finally, the Legislature argued that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable harm, but Gibson ruled that it is possible for the case and any appeals to the Utah Supreme Court to be resolved without impacting the 2026 midterm elections. She also argued that granting a stay is what would cause irreparable harm to the people of Utah.

The Legislature has indicated that they will redraw the maps, “despite a misguided court ruling and an arbitrary 30-day deadline,” according to a statement released by Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams and Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz on August 28.

The Legislature is expected to appeal the initial decision to the Utah Supreme Court and to request a stay from the Supreme Court.

Background on the lawsuit

This issue began in 2018, when Utah voters passed Proposition 4, a citizen ballot initiative run by Better Boundaries. The initiative created a redistricting commission to draw new boundary lines for Utah’s congressional districts and prohibited partisan gerrymandering.

In 2020, the Utah Legislature gutted the commission created by the initiative in S.B. 200, and it replaced maps with its own in H.B. 2004.

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit arguing that the current district maps break up Salt Lake City into four districts that dilute minority votes in the traditionally red state. They also argued that Utahns have a constitutionally protected right to “alter and reform” their government, which was what Proposition 4 did before it was changed by the Legislature.

The Utah Supreme Court upheld the people’s right to alter and reform government in a major ruling from July of last year, which meant that the lawsuit was able to move forward in Utah’s lower court. Utah’s top lawmakers discredited the ruling, calling it the “worst decision they’ve ever seen.” Earlier this year, both parties argued the merits of the case before Judge Gibson.

The legislature’s filing of a motion for stay on Monday is being deliberated with the plaintiffs. Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson has asked the court for the case to be finalized by November so that if new lines need to be drawn, they can be drawn before the 2026 midterm elections.