Utah Fair Districting

Prop 4 is a voter-passed initiative that created an independent redistricting commission and required that all maps follow neutral criteria and are not partisan gerrymanders.

• In 2018, a majority of Utah voters (512,218) voted for Proposition 4, a citizens’ initiative that prohibited partisan gerrymandering and created an independent commission that would draw congressional district maps using neutral criteria.

• In response, the Utah State Legislature claimed to have supreme authority over the redistricting process and passed S.B. 200 in March 2020, which repealed Prop 4 and replaced it with a significantly watered-down version of what the people voted to adopt.

• S.B. 200 allowed the Utah State Legislature to create its own Legislative Redistricting Committee, which did not have to follow neutral traditional redistricting criteria, and reduced the independent redistricting commission to an advisory role.

• The Utah State Legislature went on to create its own congressional map, on a short timeline and with limited public input, in a special session in November 2021. That congressional map was an extreme partisan gerrymander that sliced Salt Lake County in four, cracking Salt Lake County voters across all of the state’s congressional districts. You can find an early breakdown of the history here.

MWEG is one of eight parties that sued the Utah State Legislature for unconstitutionally repealing Prop 4.

• In early 2022, MWEG joined the League of Women Voters of Utah and six individual plaintiffs, including members of both political parties and from all four congressional districts, in a suit challenging the congressional map drawn by the Utah State Legislature in November 2021.

• We argued that by repealing the voter-enacted Prop 4, the Legislature violated the people’s “alter or reform” rights under the Utah State Constitution’s Article I, Section 2, which declares: “All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.”

In accordance with our principles of ethical government, we are holding elected representatives accountable and defending the balance of power required for constitutional government to function.

• MWEG’s lawsuit against the Utah State Legislature has always been about upholding constitutional principles and the will of voters, not partisan outcome.

• MWEG principle of ethical government 2a states that: “Political structures and electoral systems should be designed to maximize participation of and provide equitable access to all citizens in a society.” Fairly drawn representative districts are key to ensuring that voters have access and power to vote in meaningful ways.

When the Legislature repealed Prop 4, it was a violation of the people’s right to alter or reform their government, and Prop 4 is the law of redistricting in Utah. Because the Legislature’s map did not comply with Prop 4, a new legal map had to be put in place.

• In July 2024, the Utah Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Utahns’ right to alter or reform the government through a citizen ballot initiative is a fundamental right that the Legislature cannot impair without meeting certain requirements. The Utah Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court to evaluate the repeal of Prop 4 under this standard.

• In August 2025, the district court ruled that the Legislature’s repeal of Prop 4 violated the people’s alter or reform rights, and Prop 4 became the law in Utah once again. The court also ruled that the gerrymandered 2021 map, which was passed following that unconstitutional repeal, was invalid, and the Legislature had an opportunity to pass a new legal map.

• In November 2025, following a trial and extensive evidence, the district court ruled that the Legislature’s new map (Map C) did not comply with Prop 4. And because Utah must have a valid map in time for the next election, the court ordered in place one of the maps proposed by the Plaintiffs (Map 1).

No. The Legislature can draw congressional maps, but it must follow the guardrails in the law when it does.

• Article 9, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution states: “No later than the annual general session next following the Legislature's receipt of the results of an enumeration made by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall divide the state into congressional, legislative, and other districts accordingly.” This means that following the census every 10 years, the Legislature is obligated to conduct lawful redistricting.

• Under the Utah Constitution, the people and the Legislature share the power to pass laws. Article 6, Section 1 states that the legislative power of the state is shared between the Legislature and the people, and that the people may also pass redistricting legislation. Utah voters used this authority, and their Article 1, Section 2 “alter and reform” authority, to legally pass Prop 4, which created an independent redistricting commission, neutral criteria for creating maps, and a ban on partisan gerrymandering.

• Prop 4 retains the Legislature’s authority to select a map, but it must follow certain guardrails, including the neutral criteria and the ban on partisan gerrymandering, if the Legislature enacts a map.

Yes. The citizens of Utah have the right to amend their government through a citizens’ initiative, and that’s what they did with Prop 4. As the district court explained in detail in the August 25, 2025, ruling, Prop 4 is constitutional.

• In the July 2024 ruling, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed Utahns’ right to alter or reform the government, and Prop 4 is a valid exercise of that right.

• Prop 4 retains the Legislature’s role in redistricting, but it must follow the requirements and guardrails of Prop 4, including voting up or down on the commission’s proposed maps, explaining why it chose a different map if it does, and following all of Prop 4’s neutral criteria and ban on partisan gerrymandering.

• The Legislature has raised multiple arguments about the constitutionality of Prop 4, and the courts have rejected all of them.

Yes, the judge had the authority and the obligation under the Utah Constitution and the U.S. Constitution to ensure a valid map was in place by the November 10, 2025, deadline so that Utah voters would have a legal map for the next election.

• The judicial branch is an important check on the legislative branch. Judge Gibson gave the Legislature an opportunity to follow the law and create a map that complied with Prop 4’s criteria. When the Legislature’s map was found to be illegal, Judge Gibson did what state and federal courts across the country do in such a circumstance: ensure that a lawful map is in place for the next election. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Scalia, has specifically encouraged state courts to do this.

• Prop 4 required the Legislature to choose a map that followed neutral redistricting criteria:

  • Focused: Keep cities and communities together, not divided.

  • Functional: Districts should make sense geographically and follow natural boundaries.

  • Fair: Equal population, no gerrymandering.

• The Legislature’s map (Map C) violated Prop 4 in four different ways:

  • It was drawn with partisan data on the screen (the mapdrawer admitted he had partisan data on the screen while drawing the map).

  • It was drawn with the intention of being a partisan gerrymander (the evidence at trial showed the map was drawn with a purpose to favor the majority party).

  • It was drawn with the effect of being a partisan gerrymander (it was more partisan in favor of the majority party than 99.9% of the neutrally drawn, computer-simulated plans).

  • It failed to follow the neutral criteria (it split more municipalities and counties than necessary).

• Based on the lieutenant governor’s timeline, there was no time for the Legislature to get yet another chance to draw a legal map, and having no map was not an option. Utahns need a legal map, and Judge Gibson ordered in place the plaintiffs’ map, which complies with the requirements of Prop 4.

The Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office oversees the administration of Utah’s elections and stated that the 2026 congressional map had to be finalized by November 10, 2025. The Lieutenant Governor’s Office said this was the latest date that would allow enough time to prepare for the 2026 elections.

Two common ways to gerrymander a district are referred to as “cracking” and “packing.”

• Cracking splits voters with similar characteristics (e.g., party affiliation, race or ethnicity, socioeconomic class, or even language) into more districts than would be expected from complying with neutral redistricting criteria such that their vote is diluted and rendered insignificant.

• Packing crams similar groups of voters into a smaller number of districts than can be explained by compliance with neutral redistricting principles in order to minimize or negate the influence they can have on election outcomes.

• Both of these techniques can be used to draw partisan maps that consolidate power to one political party.

No. Districts that are drawn to follow the natural geography of the state and comply with neutral criteria are fair districts, not gerrymandered ones. Gerrymandering occurs when district lines are manipulated to advantage or disadvantage a political party by ignoring neutral criteria and the natural grouping of communities in the state.

• The neutral redistricting criteria set forth in Prop 4 ensure that districts are:

  • Focused: Keep cities and communities together, not divided.

  • Functional: Districts should make sense geographically and follow natural boundaries.

  • Fair: Equal population, no gerrymandering.

• The map chosen follows the criteria in Prop 4: It splits only one municipality and three counties, the minimum necessary to equalize population, and it keeps communities of interest together. Keeping cities and communities together without using partisan data naturally keeps much of Salt Lake City together and is not a redistricting manipulation to ensure a partisan outcome. The map does not have the purpose or effect of favoring or disfavoring any political party.

No, the map selected was not one that was originally proposed by the independent commission because the commission’s maps were not drawn under Prop 4.

• By the time the independent redistricting commission met in 2021, the Utah Legislature had replaced Prop 4 with S.B. 200, so the commission used the standards in S.B. 200 to draw their maps, rather than the neutral standards in Prop 4.

• Now that Prop 4 is again the law, the commission’s proposed maps are out of date.

• The new map has an 80-85% overlap with the districts in the commission’s Orange and Purple maps, showing that it largely incorporates the commission’s redistricting priorities.

No, the judge did not draw the map. The map was selected from a set of computer-simulated maps drawn by an algorithm programmed to follow Prop 4’s neutral criteria without using any partisan data.

• The map was the subject of cross-examination and analysis by both parties, and it conforms to the requirements of Prop 4. The judge selected this map because she had an obligation to ensure a valid map was in place. And this follows precedent from state and federal courts from across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judges are responsible for applying the law and deciding cases. The standard to impeach a judge is very high, and the proper course of action when a party disagrees with a court’s ruling is to appeal.

• Utah Code Section 77, Chapter 5 states that “The governor and other state and judicial offi cers shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance in office.”

• As explained in the Utah State Bar statement on the call to impeach Judge Gibson, “Judges are charged with applying the law to the facts of their cases without regard to politics or public opinion. Using impeachment as retaliation for an unfavorable decision undermines the rule of law and the separation of powers that safeguard our system of government.”

• As Chief Justice John Roberts stated recently, "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."