Utah leaders are scrambling to figure out how to get an approved map ready in time for the 2026 congressional elections after a judge ordered them to redraw the state’s current map.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah leaders are scrambling to figure out how to get an approved map ready in time to be used in the 2026 congressional elections after a judge ordered them to redraw the state’s current map.
The ruling, issued Monday by 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson, states that the current districting map can’t be used “in any future elections.” It also proposed a timeline giving the Utah Legislature 30 days to enact new political boundaries that comply with Proposition 4, which created an independent redistricting commission.
On Friday, attorneys representing the Utah Legislature, as well as those representing the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, spent nearly two hours discussing what happens next.
‘Uncharted territory’
Gibson said her ruling places them in “uncharted territory.” While she proposed a timeline to enact new political boundaries complying with Proposition 4, she said, ultimately, she wants the attorneys to agree on a timeline.
In Friday’s hearing, attorneys discussed how to make time for anticipated challenges while meeting the Nov. 1 deadline that the Legislature requested for having the new map approved by the court.
“This court is not drawing a map. It is the Legislature’s responsibility to ensure that there is a lawful congressional plan in place for the 2026 election,” Gibson said at the beginning of the hearing.
Attorney Mark Gaber, who represents the organizations that filed the lawsuit, said in some states it has fallen to the court to draw a map, and they have hired experts to assist. He said the court’s authority to create a map does not come from Proposition 4, but from the U.S. Constitution.
If the Legislature doesn’t comply with the law, Garber said, having the court draw the map could be the only option to create a valid congressional map.
However, he said it would be his preference that Gibson, instead, pick from other submitted maps, including one from his clients, if she determines the Legislature’s map does not meet the required criteria. He said that with the court’s current ruling, the operative congressional district map is the 2011 map, which is unacceptable because it is based on outdated census numbers.
Gibson said before the courts draw a map, she would need arguments and a briefing to convince her that it is within her responsibility to do so, and not a breach of the separation of powers. She said drawing a map is a legislative role.
Judge: Commission not necessary
Tyler Green, an attorney representing the state of Utah, asked for clarification on what aspects of Proposition 4 the Legislature would need to comply with, specifically inquiring about the requirement for a seven-member commission to draw and propose maps, as well as a 10-day public comment period.
“I think we can either have new maps for the 2026 election or we can have maps that fully comply with all of Proposition 4, but I don’t know that we can have both,” he said.
Gaber said the text of Proposition 4 requires a commission only when there is a new census or if additional congressional districts are allocated, which is not the case here.
He did not concede the requirement for public comment, but he did say he might be willing to agree to having fewer than 10 days available if needed to get a legitimate map. He said that because a new census has not been conducted, there is already public comment available for the Legislature to review. Ten days to review the new map would give much more time for public comment than was available in 2021, he added.
The judge ruled that the commission is not necessary, but she said the public comment time is required under Proposition 4. She said if both attorneys agreed to it, she would approve shortening the 10-day period.
Proposed timelines
Gaber pointed out that the Nov. 1 deadline was not followed in 2021, when the governor signed off on the new districting map on Nov. 12, after it was released on Nov. 5. However, the attorneys ultimately aimed for that date with each schedule they proposed.
Green said multiple times that the Legislature would like as much time as possible to create new maps. He said if they are required to have a 10-day period for public comment, he would also want adequate time to consider those comments. He said the Legislature will need to call a special session — possibly multiple special sessions — in order to meet the requirements, which will impact the timing of the case.
“The Legislature needs time to do its job,” he said.
The attorneys discussed a few specific dates in mid-October, including a Sept. 24 deadline for submitting a map and hearings about whether the map meets the requirements of Proposition 4. Gaber said he preferred earlier in October, while Green preferred later.
Green and Gaber also disagreed on the timeline for the organizations to submit proposed maps. Gaber suggested his clients submit maps along with the Legislature, and then responses to those maps would be due at the same time. Green said the Legislature’s map should be considered first before examining other proposed maps; he said it sounds like the map in Gaber’s proposal would play the role of a commission map, when it should not.
Gibson asked the attorneys to talk and come up with a plan to submit to the court — either together or separately — and she would decide on a final schedule.
Request for a stay
The Legislature’s attorney asked the court, in a brief filed shortly before Friday’s hearing, to put its ruling from earlier this week on hold until any appeals to the Utah Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court are final, allowing them to use the 2021 map during that time.
Greene requested that the motion be considered promptly, explaining that if his client wants to ask the Utah Supreme Court for a stay, it first needs to get a ruling on the motion from Gibson.
Gaber argued that it would be “tremendously unjust” to have the 2021 map govern another election cycle due to a stay. He said the people of Utah passed Proposition 4 in 2018 and noted that if the ruling is put on hold, it would be a decade between that vote and when a map that followed the vote could be used for an election.
“This has to be the point at which it stops. This has to be the point at which there is a lawful map that complies with Proposition 4’s substantive requirements,” he said.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Gibson said she wants time to look at the motion more thoroughly before issuing a ruling. She invited the attorneys to submit additional written responses for her to consider within the next few days.
Source: Utah News