Utah redistricting case: Utah’s 2026 map hinges on plaintiff’s latest claim

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — As the clock ticks towards an anticipated ruling by Nov. 10 from Utah’s Third District Judge Dianna Gibson in Utah’s redistricting case in which map to use for Utah’s 2026 midterms, the plaintiffs and the Utah legislature were back in court.

The plaintiffs and the Utah legislature were arguing over whether the legislature again violated Utah’s anti-gerrymandering law known as Proposition 4.

This time, the plaintiff’s claim was over a new law, S.B 1011, passed on Oct. 6, that mandated three specific tests to determine whether the maps favored or disfavored a party, a requirement of Prop 4 known as partisan symmetry.

Those tests, the plaintiffs allege, each create scenarios that favor the dominant party, and thus they claim that they violate Prop. 4’s ban on partisan gerrymandering.

“S.B. 1011, what it does is it takes the prohibition on partisan gerrymandering and flips it on its head, and it says by virtue of statistical tests that are known to produce partisan gerrymanders if applied in Utah, it essentially says that partisan gerrymandering is now mandated in Utah,” said Asseem Mulji, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers representing the League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and a Millcreek couple.

They want a preliminary injunction to block the law from being implemented. And if that’s granted, it could help dictate which map — the two submitted by the plaintiffs or the legislature’s map C — moves forward to be Utah’s Congressional lines in 2026.

But the lawyer for the legislature, Tyler Green, argued that the judge’s ruling in August allowed them to codify these tests when Gibson wrote that, “the legislature retains discretion in determining what judicial standards are applicable and they retain discretion to determine the ‘best available data and scientific and statistical methods’ to use in evaluating redistricting plans for compliance with state and federal law and the Proposition 4 redistricting.”

“(The legislature) had to act,” said Green. “This court knows that the legislature can only act by legislation…it’s the only way it can express its views as a body. So that’s what it did.”

He later clarified that he wasn’t saying that the legislature was required to codify the tests, but rather that, because Prop 4 requires partisan symmetry, the legislature was required to satisfy that requirement.

Judge Gibson pushed the legislature’s lawyers, though, on whether Prop 4 was meant to take a “holistic” approach to testing partisan symmetry instead of limiting the specific tests to three — which the judge said even the experts who testified in the case agreed that each test did a different thing.

“So, if there are some criticisms and they all agree, they each provide different snippets of information, by limiting and restricting it and only choosing a couple that provide only specific information — is that really complying with the statutory requirements that we consider the best available data and scientific and statistical methods?” Judge Gibson asked.

“Our answer is yes, you’re honor it is,” replied Green. “If the baseline is supposed to be some version of complete academic agreement on what a particular test is, I don’t know that the legislature could ever pick a test, or I don’t know that this court could pick a test.”

Green went on to explain that there’s always going to be a disagreement around the “best” tests available. He argued that the legislature’s role is to find what it thinks is the best way to execute Prop 4.

Gibson also asked Green to explain how limiting the tests helps to facilitate anti-gerrymandering, a goal of Prop 4.

Green said that the plaintiffs think that a map is only good “so long as it guarantees a seat for Democrats.” He argued that reality isn’t consistent with the political makeup of Utah.

“So we start from fundamentally different places,” Green said.

Meanwhile, Gibson also pushed the plaintiffs on whether the partisan bias test was the proverbial “gold standard” for testing partisan favoritism, which is why the legislature codified it.

“Does this statute require that they (codify the partisan bias test)? She asked.

“No, your honor, that’s a mistake of law,” said Mulji. “It’s all predicated on this notion that partisan symmetry is the one exclusive way to assess undue favoritism under Prop 4. But the statute makes quite clear that partisan symmetry is just one among multiple methods that can be applied to assess partisan favoritism. It’s non-exclusive.”

“The fact that it’s called out, does that give it more importance than all other standards?” asked Judge Gibson.

“No, I think what it does is it requires its inclusion, among the various methods, but it doesn’t mean that it has to be considered or that it has to be given a certain amount of weight in the analysis,” said Mulji.

The two sides also argued over which map should be used if the judge invalidates the legislature’s map C.

The plaintiffs say that the judge needs to pick one of the two they submitted because it’s the court’s job to ensure that a legal map is in place for 2026. For that reason, the plaintiffs pushed the judge to say that the 2011 map can’t be used because it’s malapportioned.

The legislature’s lawyers didn’t disagree that the 2011 map couldn’t be used, but rather because when the legislature passes a new map, they invalidate the last one. They did not suggest a remedy if Map C is not chosen.

Judge Gibson said she would take both issues under advisement and issue a ruling “on or before” Nov. 10.