Utah Supreme Court asks for arguments on legislature’s request to halt redistricting order

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — The Utah Supreme Court has granted the Utah legislature’s request for an expedited review of its arguments that the state’s high court should halt the ruling that orders new Congressional maps drawn by September 25.

The order was issued on Saturday, September 5, 2025, one day after the Utah legislature argued that it didn’t have enough time to draw new lines and that the lower court judge had made them follow only parts of Proposition 4, Utah’s 2018 voter-approved anti-gerrymandering law that was later repealed.

The Supreme Court requires lawyers for the plaintiffs, League of Women Voters, and other anti-gerrymandering groups to submit their reply by Tuesday, September 9th, and asks for the legislature’s response to that by Thursday, September 11.

While the order to reply to the legislature’s request for an emergency stay on the ruling isn’t a guarantee that the Utah Supreme Court will hear the case, it does mean that the Court is asking for arguments from both sides, something it wouldn’t do on such an expedited basis unless it was going to review and possibly rule on them.

The legislature’s reasoning to halt the ruling

“The people of Utah can have new congressional maps in place for the 2026 congressional elections. Or they can have new congressional maps resulting from a process that follows all of Proposition 4,” wrote Tyler Green, the attorney for the Utah legislature, in its initial appeal, “But given the election calendar, Utahns cannot have both.”

Green also argued that the judge’s order was “picking and choosing” which parts of Proposition 4 to follow since Prop 4 created an independent commission to redraw congressional lines.

“The district court’s pick-and-choose remedial prescriptions are inconsistent with its merits conclusions that Proposition 4 is the law that the Legislature must follow when redistricting,” Green wrote. “(The lower) court abused its discretion in crafting a remedy that itself violates Proposition 4—all to achieve Plaintiffs’ goal of running the 2026 congressional elections under a new map. And that process leaves the Legislature without any assurance that any alternative remedial map it ultimately adopts—after a laborious effort of convening a special session—will be free from yet another challenge under Proposition 4 by a different group of plaintiffs.”

But in a new order issued by the Third District judge Dianna Gibson, who also denied the legislature’s initial request for a stay, she clarified:

“A new independent redistricting commission does not need to be convened under Proposition 4 before the Legislature enacts a remedial plan. Under Proposition 4, specifically Utah Code Section 20A-19-201(4)(a) and (b), the independent redistricting commission is created by appointment “no later than 30 calendar days following . . . the receipt by the Legislature of a national decennial enumeration made by the authority of the United States, or a change in the number of congressional, legislative or other districts resulting from an event other than a national decennial enumeration made by the authority of the United States.”

“We are four years past receipt of the federal census, and there has been no change in the number of districts. In addition, some of the commission’s work, specifically holding public hearings, is timed from the occurrence of these events,” wrote Gibson.

You can read the full order from the Supreme Court below.

We’ve also included a copy of Third District Judge Gibson’s new order below.