Utah Gov. Cox says delayed redistricting decision makes it harder for ‘justice to fairly play out’

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said on Thursday that the slow arrival of the state’s bombshell redistricting decision has limited the Legislature’s ability to appeal the ruling which overrode lawmakers’ authority over redistricting.

“It’s OK to disagree with logic of the case. I do very, very strongly. I think it was a mistake,” Cox told the Deseret News. “I disagree with the decision, but the timing plus the decision is what makes it so hard for justice to fairly play out.”

On Nov. 10, 3rd District Court Judge Dianna Gibson rejected a new congressional map drawn by legislators in favor of one drawn by nonprofit groups creating a “Democratic-leaning district anchored in the northern portion of Salt Lake.”

Gibson said this was necessary to follow state law under Proposition 4, a 2018 ballot initiative that required congressional maps to meet a set of anti-gerrymandering criteria meant to encourage fair electoral boundaries.

Republican elected officials had attempted to redraw Utah’s U.S. House districts to make them more competitive under Gibson’s orders. They were subsequently angered by the very uncompetitive map selected by Gibson, an unelected judge.

When did Gibson deliver her decision?

State House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, immediately vowed to appeal the decision. But the GOP majority has so far been stumped on what to do next because Gibson delivered her decision at the last possible moment.

Gibson’s ruling arrived less than 20 minutes before midnight on Nov. 10, the deadline given by Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson to ensure time to prepare Utah’s election system before the candidate filing deadline in early January.

This comes after the Utah Supreme Court took one year to rule that the Legislature had violated the state Constitution by amending Proposition 4, and after Gibson took two months longer than promised to rule on the state’s previous congressional maps, according to Schultz.

This “astronomical timeline” made it impossible for the Legislature to pursue a typical appeals process to the Utah Supreme Court, Schultz said. While the Legislature may pursue an emergency appeal, Schultz said this would prevent the case from being heard on the merits.

“This judge structured this in a way to where it takes away the voice of the people and our judicial process in going and filing an appeal in a timely manner to the state Supreme Court,” Schultz said. “We’re confident in our position, but the judge took that away from us by doing that.”

Are criticisms of the court unfair?

Some have criticized the GOP supermajority’s verbal attacks on Gibson, saying they damage the judicial process. On Monday, court administrators highlighted an increase in threats toward “court personnel” which they said endangered “the functioning of the justice system itself.”

Katharine Biele, the president of League of Women Voters of Utah — one of the plaintiffs in the redistricting case — said that such rulings are “difficult and complex” and require “the judiciary to be both thoughtful and thorough.”

“We are thankful that Judge Gibson took the time to understand redistricting and how it complies with the state constitution,” Biele said in a statement to the Deseret News. “No one, and certainly not the governor should have wanted a hurried ruling without a sound foundation.”

Cox, a former attorney who clerked for a U.S. District court judge, said that beyond disagreeing with the “logic of the case,” he believes that if Gibson had acted sooner, she could have followed “the normal process” outlined in Proposition 4 by asking the Legislature to redraw the map again if needed.

Schultz has framed Gibson’s decision to run out the clock as purposeful, and some lawmakers have come out in favor of impeaching Gibson on grounds that she overstepped her authority by taking control of a legislative process when lawmakers were attempting to follow the law.

Cox was hesitant to go so far, but said it was common practice for judges in high-profile cases, particularly those with political stakes, to make sure there is room for a full appeals process, which includes time to prepare arguments for a higher court.

“The piece that I’m struggling with — a lot of people are struggling with — is the timing, how long it took,“ Cox said. “I’ve worked for the judiciary, I clerked for a judge on a big decision like this. We always would have made a decision earlier to allow time for an appeal.”