Members of the House of Representatives work at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
Utah’s top Republican legislative leaders say they’ll obey court orders and redraw the state’s congressional map after a judge earlier this week ruled the map the Utah Legislature last adopted in 2021 was a product of an unconstitutional process.
But they also made it crystal clear they’re not happy about it.
“Despite a misguided court ruling and an arbitrary 30-day deadline, the Utah Legislature will defend its constitutional authority and move forward with redrawing the state’s congressional map,” House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, said in a joint statement issued Thursday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
While Adams and Schultz say state attorneys plan to appeal the decision to the Utah Supreme Court, in the meantime they say they’ll follow the order’s timeline.
“While we will continue to pursue every legal option available — including requesting a stay from the Utah Supreme Court if necessary — we will attempt to redistrict under these unprecedented constraints, consistent with our oath to represent the best interests of Utah,” they said.
In their statement, Adams and Schultz asserted 3rd District Court Judge Dianna Gibson’s ruling itself was unconstitutional.
“The court’s order unconstitutionally ties the Legislature’s hands by mandating certain redistricting criteria when the U.S. and Utah constitutions leave it to the people’s representatives in the legislature to redistrict,” Adams and Schultz said.
The ruling comes as a redistricting arms race is unfolding across the nation as President Donald Trump looks to grow Republicans’ slim majority in the U.S. House ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
For years, Utah’s four U.S. House seats have been reliably Republican, especially after the Utah Legislature went through their last redistricting process in 2021. That year, Utah lawmakers drew their maps after they repealed a 2018 voter-approved ballot initiative known as Proposition 4 and replaced it with SB200, a law that turned the proposition’s independent commission into an advisory body lawmakers could ignore, and they did just that.
This week, Gibson deemed that repeal and replacement of the Better Boundaries voter initiative unconstitutional, and found that the map lawmakers drew was a result of an unconstitutional process.
Criticizing that ruling, Utah Republicans argue the Utah Constitution’s plain language requires the Legislature to carry out the task of redistricting. Gibson’s ruling, however, said the term “Legislature” in that provision “does not exclude the legislative power of the people.”
“Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Utah Constitution grants sole and exclusive authority over redistricting to the Legislature,” Gibson wrote. “Because legislative power is shared co-equally and co-extensively between the Legislature and the people, and because redistricting is legislative, the people have the fundamental constitution right and authority to propose redistricting legislation that is binding on the Legislature.”
Gibson’s order requires the Legislature to “design and enact a remedial congressional map that complies with the mandatory redistricting standards and requirements originally established under Proposition 4.”
Let us know what you think...
Adams and Schultz said in their statement that they plan to draw a map that has districts that represent both rural and urban voices. That approach indicates they’re reluctant to go with what’s been called a “donut hole” approach, or drawing a map that carves out a district concentrated around the state’s capital of Salt Lake City, the state’s darkest blue Democratic stronghold.
“We can and will continue to pursue the same goal we have had from the outset — for each member of Congress to represent both urban and rural voices,” Schultz and Adams said. “This model provides a true statewide perspective, ensuring that all Utahns — whether they live in rural towns, suburban neighborhoods or our capital city — have four strong voices in Washington, D.C.”
Adams and Schultz also criticized the tight, 30-day timeline set by Gibson.
“When we last drew congressional boundaries, the Legislature spent nearly six months traveling the state and holding more than 20 public meetings to gather input,” they said. Now, the court has allowed only 30 days to complete the same complex process, leaving little opportunity for meaningful, statewide public involvement. Even more concerning, after hearing summary judgments in January, the judge waited months to issue a ruling — only to then impose this rushed deadline on the public and the Legislature. Such a timeline is not only unreasonable, it is fundamentally unfair to Utahns.”
This story is breaking and will be updated.
Comments