The Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging the constitutionality of Legislature-approved congressional maps.
The five justices focused their questioning mainly on the passage of Proposition 4. The 2018 citizen ballot initiative created an independent redistricting commission to draw new state and congressional maps to avoid partisan gerrymandering. The commission would then present those maps to the Legislature and lawmakers would either approve one or provide reasoning against them. The proposition narrowly passed with 50% of the vote.
But what happened after Prop 4 was approved was the crux of the legal argument in front of the justices.
The Legislature made alterations to the citizen initiative through SB200, which turned the commission into an advisory committee. As a result, the Republican-controlled Legislature approved their own maps that divided Salt Lake County – the bluest part of the state – into four congressional districts. The move sparked a lawsuit from the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, among others.
Taylor Meehan, a lawyer representing state lawmakers, defended the Legislature’s constitutional right to change the language or completely strike out parts of Prop 4. She argued the Legislature has “co-equal” powers as the people, therefore they can create congressional maps and the power to adjust citizen initiatives approved by voters.
“What the Legislature did with SB200 that passed nearly unanimously was a compromise solution, it was not a full repeal,” she said. “The independent redistricting committee still exists.”
Meehan compared the back-and-forth between the people and the Legislature to “ping-pong” but said the people ultimately “have the last say.” she added if voters didn’t like their elected officials, they have the power to vote them out of office.
Furthermore, Meehan argued the battle before the court is “politics all the way down,” rather than a constitutional violation. And because it’s the duty of the Legislature to redraw district boundaries, it’s not the courts' place to establish political standards.
“It’s a discretionary decision,” she said, “not an unconstitutional one.”
Mark Gaber, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, opened by saying the defendant’s stance “is the exact opposite of what the [Utah] Constitution says.”
He said the Legislature cannot repeal a citizens' initiative, and doing so violates equal protection and the right to a free and fair election under the Utah Constitution. He argued splitting Salt Lake County into four different congressional districts works to “minimize the [political] minority voice” to ensure Republicans dominate each district.
“It’s clear that the people wanted zero partisanship in the drawing of the lines,” he said. “Political power is inherent in the people – not the Legislature – the people.”
Gaber said the Legislature, if they believe a citizens' initiative is wrong, can exercise its power by approving a constitutional amendment on the issue and ultimately leaving it up to the people to decide.
“That’s the back and forth of the Constitution of the democratic process, the “ping-pong” that the document envisions.”
It’s unclear when the Court will rule on the case.
