facebook-pixel

Letter: Judge Gibson’s decision on Utah’s redistricting maps is, in fact, constitutional

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Judge Dianna Gibson listens to a hearing regarding congressional district maps in 3rd District Court in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025.

Gov. Spencer Cox and several state legislators are claiming Judge Dianna Gibson’s adoption of Map 1 as the state’s new congressional map violates the Utah Constitution. Cox, for example, said the Constitution “clearly states that it is the responsibility of the Legislature to divide the state into congressional districts” and no one “can usurp that constitutional authority.” That’s wrong because it ignores other parts of the Constitution.

While the Constitution requires the legislature to divide the state into congressional districts, it also gives “the people” the “right to alter or reform their government” through “citizen initiatives”.

When a citizen initiative relates to government reform, like prohibiting partisan gerrymandering, that trumps the Legislature (except for minor changes).

This issue was thoroughly addressed by the Utah Supreme Court in its July 2024 decision. As the court explained, when Utah voters adopted the citizen initiative language in the state Constitution in 1900, they intentionally used language that gave them the right to trump the legislature regarding government reform. “Historical records show that voters intended citizen initiatives to be a check on the legislative branch of government because they were concerned about the influence of money, lobbyists, and ‘deal-making’ on legislators. With that intent, they did not include any language giving the legislature power to amend or appeal citizen initiatives.” That is why the court sent the case back to the lower court to enforce Prop 4.

When the Legislature failed to propose a map that complied, the judge adopted the plaintiffs’ map that did. In many scenarios this is a normal thing for a judge to do to prevent noncompliant parties from circumventing the law indefinitely.

Gibson’s decision is constitutional. I suggest everyone read the Utah Constitution and the Utah Supreme Court decision in full.

Helen Anderson, Provo

Submit a letter to the editor