Utah’s timeline for creating new congressional maps, including when the public can weigh in, is still messy after a nearly two-hour status hearing Friday.
Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson talked with attorneys for the state and the plaintiffs, League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, about how to proceed after her Monday decision. Gibson ruled the Legislature acted unconstitutionally and that the state’s current U.S House Districts have to be thrown out and replaced.
While the intermediary deadlines are still being debated, the overarching court-ordered goal is the same for now: get the maps done in time for the 2026 midterm elections.
But lawyers for the Utah Legislature are also asking Gibson to put her order on hold pending appeals to higher courts. They said they are looking at appealing to the Utah Supreme Court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the state does not prevail in getting Gibson to side with them, lawmakers have previously indicated they will ask the Utah Supreme Court to put the ruling on pause.
In their written request, the Legislature's attorneys maintain their argument that Gibson’s ruling was incorrect, and they don’t think it respects the Legislature’s constitutional authority to redistrict, as lawmakers see it.
Plus, there’s now the added complication of becoming part of a national debate over redistricting.
“The timing of this Court’s injunction and the remedial proceedings parachutes Utah into a national redistricting spotlight when intensely partisan redistricting fights are being waged across the country,” Tyler Green, one of the Legislature’s attorneys, wrote in the request.
Green wrote that this will incentivize “third parties to usurp the Legislature’s constitutional prerogatives to redistrict,” and that putting a stay on the order will avoid that problem.
As expected, attorneys representing the plaintiffs disagreed. Attorney Mark Gaber said it would be unjust for Utahns to have to have another election cycle where their congressional maps do not comply with the redistricting standards they passed in 2018 under Proposition 4.
“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,” Gaber said.
Gibson said she will thoroughly review the request and rule soon
Pending Gibson’s decision to put the ruling on hold, there are still questions about the timeline, like when each side will submit its maps, when the public can weigh in and when both sides will be back in court to adjudicate if the state's maps are satisfactory.
“We are sort of in uncharted territory here. There's really not a road map for what we do next,” Gibson told both parties on Friday. “I wanted to emphasize the timeline that the court included in the order was a proposal.”
State lawmakers have complained about how tight the current deadline is, which currently requires them to submit their maps by Sept. 24.
There will likely be more clarity on the timeline next week. Gibson directed the attorneys for the state and attorneys for the plaintiffs to try to agree on a proposed timeline and submit it to her.
Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson’s office has previously said that any new maps would need to be sent to her by Nov. 1 in order to be used in 2026. Gibson has asked if that deadline could be extended at all, and Henderson’s attorney said he’ll get a response by next week.
Gibson also used Friday’s hearing to make one thing clear: the court is not drawing boundaries.
After Monday’s ruling, Gibson received backlash from some GOP lawmakers on social media who accused her of being a “judicial activist” and claimed the court would draw the maps.
“This court is not drawing a map,” Gibson said. “It is the legislature's responsibility to make sure that there's a lawful congressional plan in place for the 2026 election. This court recognizes the separation of powers.”
In the event that the Legislature failed to submit a lawful map, Gibson said later in the hearing, the court may have to choose between maps presented to the judge.
Outside the courtroom, Elizabeth Rasmussen, executive director of Better Boundaries, the group that organized the 2018 redistricting ballot initiative, said she’s feeling cautiously optimistic.
“I'm just really excited that this process is moving forward. I mean, we're actually having conversations about drawing a new map, which is really exciting for us and for Utahns,” Rasmussen said. “I just hope that the legislature takes those standards seriously and follows them when drafting this map.”
In redrawing the districts, lawmakers have to adhere to the standards in the 2018 citizen-passed initiative, called Proposition 4. That includes things like minimizing the division of municipalities and achieving equal population among districts. It also bans lawmakers from splitting up boundaries in a way that unduly favors or disfavors a political party, known as partisan gerrymandering.
