Plaintiffs in an anti-gerrymandering lawsuit hold a news conference outside the Matheson Courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City on Aug. 25, 2025. (Katie McKellar/Utah News Dispatch)
Utah’s yearslong redistricting lawsuit is back before the Utah Supreme Court as the Utah Legislature’s attorneys continue to fight a lower court ruling that tossed out the state’s 2021 congressional boundaries.
Legislative attorneys argue the tight timeline the court has laid out to select a new map before Nov. 10, in time for the 2026 election, has only heightened “the separation-of-powers harms to the Legislature” and doesn’t wholly abide by the 2018, anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative known as Proposition 4 that the judge has now deemed law.
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs — the League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and several Salt Lake County voters — had a fiery response to those arguments in their rebuttal submitted to the Utah Supreme Court late Tuesday.
“It is difficult to avoid the jarring irony running throughout Legislative Defendants’ petition — that now, more than five years after defying the will of the voters and gutting every meaningful part of Proposition 4, it is the Legislature that wants to be its newfound champion, claiming Utah voters must abide yet another election cycle under an unlawful map because there just isn’t enough time to pay adequate fidelity to Proposition 4,” plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote.
They argued that the Legislature claims it now needs to be rescued “from an ‘emergency’ that is self-created at best and wholly illusory at worst.”
Third District Judge Dianna Gibson, they argued, has “put in place an orderly process, similar to what courts across the country have used in analogous circumstances.”
“That process will (finally) result in a legal and constitutional map being in place for the 2026 election cycle,” they wrote. “There is no ‘emergency’ simply because the Legislature does not want to do the work voters demanded and that it should have done five years ago. The petition, which is heavy on rhetoric and light on analysis, should be denied.”
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Gibson ruled on Aug. 25 that the 2021 map was the product of an unconstitutional process after the Utah Legislature repealed and replaced Better Boundaries’ ballot initiative, Proposition 4, which created an independent redistricting commission. By passing SB200, the GOP-controlled Utah Legislature turned that commission into an advisory body that lawmakers could ultimately ignore — which is what they did when they drew the 2021 congressional map that anti-gerrymandering groups have called “blatant gerrymandering.”
Legislative attorneys are now appealing to the same court that handed them a major blow last summer, when all five justices on the Utah Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion that Gibson — who had previously dismissed the claim that the Legislature violated the Utah Constitution when it repealed and replaced Better Boundaries’ ballot initiative — had erred.
On Saturday, the Utah Supreme Court granted Utah lawmakers’ emergency request for an expedited review of their petition to block Gibson’s ruling, which asked the court to grant or deny their motion no later than Sept. 15 given the tight timeline the Utah Legislature now faces to draw a new map by Sept. 25.
Gibson amends ruling, says she ‘overstepped’ by ordering lawmakers to draw a new map
As the case rapidly winds through the Utah Supreme Court, Gibson also filed an amendment Saturday clarifying her Aug. 25 ruling while also officially adopting the timeline parties previously agreed to setting deadlines for the new map-drawing process.
While Gibson’s ruling continues to block Utah’s 2021 congressional map, Gibson amended it to “remove the ‘order’ requiring the Legislature to ‘design and enact’ a new congressional plan in the next 30 days.”
“That ‘order’ failed to recognize the separation of powers between our courts and our legislature and unintentionally failed to respect the Legislature’s authority to determine how to address the Court’s order enjoining H.B. 2004,” Gibson wrote. “This Court overstepped its authority by ordering the Legislature to enact a new congressional plan.”
However, that doesn’t change the timeline that has been set to remedy the tossed-out 2021 congressional map, which Gibson deemed a product of an unconstitutional process.
While her ruling allows the Legislature to decide whether to submit a map or not, the court still retains jurisdiction over selecting a new map to be used in the 2026 election — whether it’s submitted by lawmakers or by the lawsuit’s plaintiffs.
Here’s the schedule attorneys for the Utah Legislature and the lawsuit’s plaintiffs have agreed to abide to and Gibson’s latest order has affirmed:
Sept. 25: The Utah Legislature will publish its new proposed map.
Sept. 26 to Oct. 5: Lawmakers will hold a public comment period to take input on the map.
Oct. 6: The Legislature will take a final vote on the map and submit it to the court for consideration. Plaintiffs will also have the same deadline to submit any proposed maps to the judge.
Oct. 17: The deadline for both parties to file briefs, expert reports, and other materials in support or opposition to map submissions, if necessary.
Oct. 23 to Oct. 24: The court will hold an evidentiary hearing, if necessary.
Oct. 28: The deadline for parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with the court, if necessary.
Nov. 10: The latest possible date for the court to select a final map, according to the lieutenant governor’s office.