Here’s what’s next in Utah’s disputed redistricting process, now that lawmakers have adopted a map

On Monday, Republican lawmakers adopted their choice for a new map of congressional districts and submitted it to a Utah judge, part of a court-ordered dash to get new districts set ahead of the 2026 election.

But the process is far from over.

Here’s a brief look at how Utah’s redistricting battle reached this point and where it goes from here.

What sparked this tussle over redistricting?

In 2018, voters narrowly approved the Better Boundaries initiative (also known as Proposition 4) that intended to set standards for how the Legislature draws political boundaries. Among other things, the initiative sought to establish the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and to ban partisan gerrymandering — drawing political boundaries to benefit one party to the detriment of another.

The Legislature substantially repealed the initiative in 2020 (with support from Democrats) and adopted its own maps that split Democratic areas in Salt Lake County into four congressional districts, creating four rock-solid Republican U.S. House seats.

The League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a handful of affected voters sued, arguing that the Legislature violated citizens’ constitutional right to change laws when it undid the initiative. Last July, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously agreed and said such changes could only be made if the state has a “compelling” reason and the revisions are narrow in scope.

In late August, 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that the Legislature’s justification fell short of the court’s standards and stated that “Proposition 4 is the law in Utah.” Because the Legislature’s existing maps did not comply with Proposition 4, she tossed them out, and said they were not to be used in the 2026 election.

That meant lawmakers had to come up with a new map by Oct. 6.

What process did the Legislature go through to draw the maps?

Legislative leaders appointed a 10-member redistricting committee — eight Republicans and two Democrats — to guide the process. Republicans on the committee hired an independent expert to produce five options for consideration. Democrats submitted their own map, as well.

Two hearings were held and the public was given 10 days to submit comments to the committee. More than 9,000 comments were submitted.

Although the committee was not allowed by law to consider partisan data — like voter registration or election data — when choosing a map, midway through the comment period, the Utah Republican Party sent an email to party members urging them to support Map C because it was the map least likely to result in Democrats gaining a seat. After that, comments in support of Map C shot up.

That ended up being the map Republican legislators opted to pass on Monday, despite opposition from the minority Democrats. Gov. Spencer Cox the bill adopting the map a few hours after it passed and it was submitted to Gibson for review.

What does the Legislature’s map look like?

Unlike the map adopted in 2021 that split Salt Lake County four ways, Map C creates an east-west split in Salt Lake County, putting the eastern half with the northern portion of Utah County and the counties to the east to create one district. The western part of the county is combined with Tooele to make another.

The other two districts span the northern portion of the state and the southwestern counties, respectively.

So is that the map that will be used in the November 2026 midterm elections?

We don’t know that yet. Gibson still has to review the Legislature’s map to determine if it complies with Proposition 4. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit will submit analysis from experts attacking the map and Republican legislators will submit expert testimony defending their work.

If Gibson deems the map adequate, it will be used in 2026. If not, plaintiffs have submitted two maps of their own that she can consider.

She has set a two-day hearing for Oct. 23-24 to hear arguments from the parties regarding which boundaries she should select.

What criteria will Gibson use in reviewing the maps?

The judge will consider whether the map meets the basic criteria of Proposition 4: Are the districts balanced in terms of population? Are they contiguous? Are they compact? Do they unnecessarily split cities or counties? Do they keep “communities of interest” intact?

The trickiest one is determining whether the maps unfairly benefit one party and disadvantage the other.

Political scientists have put forward numerous tests to detect partisan gerrymanders and Proposition 4 originally said the court should use “the best available data and scientific and statistical methods” in making a determination.

But Republican legislators passed a bill Monday that would only allow Gibson to use three tests — all of which the sponsors of the legislative map said their map passes.

The plaintiffs argue that the tests the Legislature chose don’t work well in a state like Utah with a small number of districts and a large partisan advantage. Not only would they fail to identify a partisan gerrymander, they assert, maps with competitive or Democrat-leaning districts would fail and only maps creating safe Republican seats would pass.

They contend it’s a backdoor attempt to undo Proposition 4 and, based on the Supreme Court’s ruling from last year, have asked Gibson to deem the testing legislation unconstitutional, giving her more latitude when evaluating the maps.

Are Republican legislators OK with this process?

Not by a long shot.

Republican leaders have repeatedly said that the drawing of political boundaries is a constitutional duty of the Legislature and the court should not be involved. They have said they plan to go to the Utah Supreme Court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court to make that case, but have not set a timeframe for doing that.

Beyond that, Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, said Monday he would consider it an act of “malfeasance” for Gibson to choose a map that wasn’t drawn by the Legislature and that it would also be “malfeasance” for the lieutenant governor — who runs state elections — to certify a map chosen by a judge.

That term is significant because acts of malfeasance are grounds for impeachment.

House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said he couldn’t speak to whether his House colleagues would support impeachment, but he said he does believe it would be unconstitutional for a judge to select a map other than the Legislature’s.

“I’ll just be very blunt,” Schultz said. “The Legislature will do all we can to protect the power given to it in the constitution in Article 9. Nowhere in the constitution does it allow for a judge to be able to pick a map, and we will adamantly defend that to whatever means necessary.”

How could the new boundaries change the makeup of the state’s four-person congressional delegation?

Obviously that depends on which map ends up being used and which candidates run.

Any of the three options before Gibson are more favorable to Democrats than the current arrangement.

Based on an analysis of recent election data by The Salt Lake Tribune, Map C would create a district that gives a Republican candidate a six-point advantage and another district with an 11-point edge.

The first of the plaintiffs maps basically creates a compact “donut hole” district covering roughly the northern two-thirds of Salt Lake County. It leans heavily liberal and would favor a Democratic candidate by more than 17 points.

The second map submitted by the plaintiffs somewhat resembles the Legislature’s map, in that it creates a east-west divide of Salt Lake County. But because it lumps the most liberal parts of the county into the western district, it would mean an eight-point advantage for a Democratic candidate.

Those numbers are based on past elections, so anything can happen.

Who might run for the seats?

Right now, the assumption is that the four current Republican members will seek reelection — it just is less clear which districts they’ll aim for. In the U.S. House, a candidate doesn’t have to live in the district to run for the seat.

On the Democratic side, former Rep. Ben McAdams is said to be interested in a bid to return to Congress if there’s a seat he could win. And on Monday, state Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, issued a statement saying she is considering a bid and thinks she could win the eastern district that includes her current Senate turf.

Why does this matter?

Beyond the larger issue of fair representation in Congress, right now Republicans hold a six-seat majority in the U.S. House of Represenatives with another Democrat waiting to be sworn in after winning a special election in Arizona.

That tight margin makes it difficult to govern. On top of that, the party in the White House typically loses seats in the midterm elections.

Losing control of the House could mean that President Donald Trump’s agenda could stall. In addition, House Democrats would have the power to investigate the administration and potentially try to impeach the already twice-impeached president.

Trump 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. That is being challenged in court. 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.

What about other political boundaries — like the Utah House, Senate and Board of Education?

Nobody sued over those maps, so Gibson’s ruling only addressed the congressional boundaries. An argument could be made, based on the precedent that has now been established, that the legislative maps and school board maps drawn by the Legislature also didn’t comply with Proposition 4 — they certainly did not comply with Proposition 4’s procedural requirements — but that would require a separate lawsuit.