Things are moving fast in Utah’s rush to redraw its congressional boundaries ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Below is a brief explainer of what led up to this point, where things stand, where they’re headed and why it matters.
Question: How did we get here?
In a nutshell, in 2018, voters narrowly approved the Better Boundaries initiative (also known as Proposition 4) that, among other things, set up the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and prohibited partisan gerrymandering — drawing political boundaries to benefit one party to the detriment of another.
The Legislature substantially repealed the initiative in 2020 and adopted maps that split Democratic areas in Salt Lake County into four different congressional districts, thus creating four safe Republican U.S. House seats.
The League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a handful of affected voters sued, and last year the Utah Supreme Court ruled unanimously that repealing the initiative violated voters’ constitutional right to make law, something it could only do with a “compelling” reason.
Late last month, Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that the Legislature’s justification fell short and that “Proposition 4 is the law in Utah.” Because the Legislature’s existing maps did not meet the requirements of Proposition 4, she tossed them out, said they were not to be used in the 2026 election, and now lawmakers are starting over.
As Gibson said in a recent court hearing: “We’re kind of in uncharted territory. … There’s really not a roadmap for what we do next.”
Q. How long does the Legislature have to draw new maps? Can the public provide input?
Initially, Gibson ordered the Legislature to enact new maps but subsequently backed away from that language, reasoning that the court can’t tell the Legislature what to do. Still, the Legislature has to come up with a new map on a tight timeline.
Under the deadlines the parties have agreed to, the Legislature has to publish a draft of its map by Sept. 25. Under Proposition 4, the public would then have 10 days to provide comment and input. The Legislature would then meet in a special session Oct. 6 to adopt the final version of its map, which would then be submitted to the court. The plaintiffs will also submit a proposed map.
If the plaintiffs think the Legislature’s map doesn’t meet the requirements of Proposition 4, a hearing will be held before Gibson for both sides to present their arguments. If Gibson is convinced the Legislature’s map meets the Prop 4 requirements, it will become the map for the 2026 congressional elections. If not, she could choose one of the other submitted maps, which would likely prompt an appeal from the Legislature.
According to the lieutenant governor’s office, county clerks need a final map no later than Nov. 10 in order to prepare for the 2026 election.
Q. Lawmakers appealed Gibson’s ruling. How does that impact the timing?
On Sept. 5, attorneys for the Legislature filed an emergency motion with the Utah Supreme Court asking the justices to halt the redrawing of the maps. The lawyers argued that, if Gibson wants to actually follow ALL of Proposition 4, the process should include establishing a new independent redistricting commission.
If the court does require that step, it could make it impossible to draw the maps by the Nov. 10 deadline.
Gibson has ruled that Proposition 4 only requires a new independent commission be created for the initial map-drawing process, so a new commission doesn’t need to be set up. Because the data — figures from the 2020 Census — has not changed, the Legislature and the plaintiffs can still consider the maps the commission recommended while they are coming up with new boundaries.
Gibson previously refused the Legislature’s request to pause the mapmaking. In her denial, Gibson said voters would be “irreparably” harmed if there was another election cycle and two more years of maps that were “enacted in disregard to Proposition 4 and in defiance of the will of the people of Utah.”
Attorneys for the Legislature have asked the justices to decide whether to halt the remapping no later than Sept. 15. They could also file an appeal contending that Gibson got it wrong when she said Proposition 4 needed to be followed and new maps drawn.
But keep in mind that the appeal would go to the same five justices who unanimously ruled last year that the public’s constitutional right to make binding laws through the ballot initiative process — and that the Legislature must respect the will of voters. Justice would essentially have to completely reverse themselves.
It is also possible that lawmakers could file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a narrower federal election issue. In recent years, the justices have largely punted when asked to decide gerrymandering cases, leaving it to the state courts to hash out.
Q. Does this mean Utah will send a Democratic to Congress?
Not necessarily, but it would be much more likely than under the current maps.
According to an analysis by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, the maps that Gibson struck down gave the GOP-drawn maps an “F” grade for partisan fairness, since the advantage Republicans gave themselves ranged from a 19% edge in District 2 up to 28% in District 4.
While it could be possible to draw four seats that favor Republicans, if the Legislature truly complies with Proposition 4’s prohibition on the use of partisan data, it is very unlikely.
But how unlikely?
During its process, the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission used a computer program to draw 100,000 maps that met the criteria in Prop 4 — including not using partisan voting information. The commission’s analysis found that roughly 99,500 of them — or 99.5% — had at least one seat that was competitive or would lean Democratic.
Also, who represents the state depends on the candidates and, ultimately, the voters.
Q. Does this case matter outside of Utah?
Beyond the larger issue of fair representation in Congress, right now Republicans hold a seven-seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives (with four vacancies — three in Democratic held districts). That’s a very narrow margin that makes it difficult to govern. Additionally, the party in the White House typically loses seats in the midterm elections.
Losing control of the U.S. House would mean the Republican agenda would stall out. Not only that, House Democrats would have the power to investigate the administration and potentially try to impeach the already twice-impeached President Donald Trump.
Trump has pressured Texas to redraw its congressional boundaries — something typically only done every 10 years after the Census — to try to gain five new Republican seats. California Democrats have answered by proposing a retaliatory gerrymander of their own, and other states like Missouri and Illinois may join the fray.
The circumstances in Utah are different. But with such narrow margins, the prospect of even one potential Democratic gain is a big deal and the reason that Trump took to social media to blast Gibson’s ruling.
Note to readers • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.