Day one of oral arguments in Utah’s redistricting case, judge schedules two more hearings

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — The two parties in Utah’s redistricting case were in front of a lower court judge Thursday for their first of a two-day evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Utah legislature’s newly passed Map C violates the state’s citizen-backed anti-gerrymandering law known as Proposition 4.

The plaintiffs’ redistricting experts each took the stand, claiming that Map C — approved by the legislature after Judge Dianna Gibson enjoined Utah’s current maps — didn’t meet the neutral anti-gerrymandering criteria required of Prop 4.

At the end of nearly 7 hours of oral arguments, Judge Dianna Gibson also scheduled two more hearings for the parties to argue claims in this ongoing case, which could determine which maps are used in the 2026 midterms.

A hearing on November 4 will address the claim against a new law passed by the Utah legislature that dictates three tests to use to judge partisan symmetry, or fairness, when creating a map with Prop 4 criteria.

On November 5, the court will address the claim that a newly filed plan by the Utah Republican Party to overturn Proposition 4 via a legislative initiative is unconstitutional.

If the legislature prevails in this case, Map C, which creates two competitive districts in Utah, will be allowed to be Utah’s new lines for 2026, unless the GOP’s initiative or referendum is allowed to continue and it stops that. If the legislature does not prevail, the judge will pick a map submitted by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs allege Map C “unduly favors” Republicans

The hearing started with Jowie Chen, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan, who outlined a statistical algorithm he used and a sample of 10,000 tests to compare map C against using the hierarchy of criteria from Proposition 4.

“It’s an extreme partisan outlier,” he said of Map C. “It is more heavily Republican than almost all of the computer-simulated plans.”

Chen also picked apart the partisan bias test, one that lawmakers codified. He told the court that the test is “inappropriate” for Utah because it requires a “hypothetical world” that doesn’t make any sense in Utah’s lopsided political realities.

Dr. Chen said that almost all of the 10,000 tests in his simulation were rejected by the partisan bias test. Only 11 passed it, and over half of those were 4-0 republican districts.

Chen testified that any democratic district would “most certainly” fail that test and that the test is “at odds” with Prop 4’s neutral criteria.

“You apply Utah’s natural political geography combined with strict adherence to the Prop 4 redistricting criteria to end up with, I found, in over 99% of my simulated plans, a 3-1 plan,” Chen said, meaning that three districts would be republican, and one would be democrat.

The legislature’s lawyer, Soren Geiger, worked to poke holes in Chen’s algorithm with previous statements Chen made in other states’ court cases, and a report that said he took his sample set and altered some maps so they wouldn’t look the same.

Chen called that “ridiculous” and “a complete lie.” He said, “The idea that I somehow I took say, 1,000 simulated maps, and sat there by hand, thousands of districts, and just jiggered around lines just to make them different, it’s just preposterous.”

The plaintiffs also brought up one of the individuals named in the lawsuit, Victoria Reed, a woman from Millcreek who said her city was unfairly divided in Utah’s current maps. She identified herself as a registered republican and a member of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

The legislative lawyers questioned her on whether her vote was actually impacted because, as they said, she can still cast a vote and donate to candidates and political parties.

Her husband, Malcom, also testified, arguing that they could still do that but that their vote was “less effective” when their district had been carved up.

Chris Warshaw, a political science professor from Georgetown, also testified on why the partisan bias test doesn’t work in Utah and outlined why the efficiency gap does. He stated that the partisan bias test is “gameable” in Utah because Utah is not “electorally competitive,” and it can create “paradoxical results” in the test.

The efficiency gap, on the other hand, measures how efficiently parties can turn votes into seats and compares the parties across seats. Warshaw explained that some states are so electorally uncompetitive that the efficiency gap would not be appropriate, but Utah is not one of those states.

Friday’s hearing continues at 8:30 a.m., where the legislature’s lawyers will get to call their experts, who will then be cross-examined.