Over the past couple of years, tensions have simmered between the Utah Legislature and the judiciary, at times erupting. After a judge approved the state’s new congressional map in a long-fought redistricting case, the reactions came in fast and furious.
The plaintiffs — the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government — saw the ruling as a validation for voters. The state’s majority Republicans, however, were furious.
“This is a clear example of judicial activism,” Rep. Candice Pierucci wrote on social media minutes after the decision came down. Pierucci co-chaired the state’s redistricting committee that helped pick the rejected map.
“One unelected judge decided that her personal opinion outweighs Utah’s Constitution and the will of the people — and that’s unacceptable.”
In her 90-page ruling, Utah Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson said she couldn’t approve the Legislature’s preferred map because it unduly and purposefully favored Republicans, which goes against the state’s law banning partisan gerrymandering. That voter-approved provision, Proposition 4, is central to the case and a source of annoyance with lawmakers after the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the power of citizen initiatives to reform government.
In the end, she approved a map submitted by plaintiffs, which creates three Republican-favoring districts and one, centered around northern Salt Lake County, that leans Democratic.
The Utah GOP called the ruling a "constitutional crisis.”
State Senate President Stuart Adams and Speaker of the House Mike Schultz said, “a single unelected judge set aside the Utah Constitution and the voice of Utah voters, selecting a map drawn behind closed doors by out-of-state advocacy groups.”
In 2018, then-Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, appointed Gibson to the bench. The Utah Senate unanimously confirmed her.
“The judge disregarded the Constitution to select a clearly gerrymandered map,” the Republican leadership said in a statement. “This is not fair to Utahns and is deeply disappointing.”
Adams and Schultz maintain that Gibson is not allowed to select a map because, per their interpretation of the state constitution, that power solely rests with the Legislature.
Gibson made it clear throughout the process that she doesn’t relish being in this position.
In her Monday ruling, she wrote, “In short, Map C [the Legislature’s map] does not comply with Utah law. Because the Lieutenant Governor’s November 10, 2025 deadline for a map to be finalized is upon us, the court bears the unwelcome obligation to ensure that a lawful map is in place.”
The only statement from Legislative leaders after the ruling didn’t address appealing the decision to a higher court, though it’s something they’ve talked about in the past. Gov. Spencer Cox issued a statement saying he fully supports an appeal.
“The Utah Constitution clearly states that it is the responsibility of the Legislature to divide the state into congressional districts,” Cox wrote. “While I respect the Court’s role in our system, no judge, and certainly no advocacy group, can usurp that constitutional authority.”
Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, the state’s top elections official, expects the Legislature will try an emergency appeal. But unless a court tells her otherwise, she said the map Gibson approved will be what Utah uses in 2026.
“The people of Utah deserve an orderly and fair election and we will do everything in our power to administer one,” Henderson said.
One Republican lawmaker has announced he wants to impeach Gibson “for gross abuse of power, violating the separation of powers and failing to uphold her oath of office to the Utah Constitution.” Rep. Matt MacPherson posted to social media that he had opened a bill to that effect. The first day of the next general session for lawmakers is Jan. 20, 2026.
The Utah State Bar condemned the threat of retaliation. Impeachment, they said, would undermine the rule of law and separation of powers that are checks and balances on the system.
“The judiciary must remain free from political pressure so all Utahns can have confidence in fair, impartial courts,” the bar said in its statement. “Impeachment is reserved for serious misconduct, and disagreement should instead be addressed through the appeals process.”
While Republicans are fuming, the League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a handful of Utah voters who sued are pleased with the result. They held a news conference on the steps of the Matheson Courthouse the morning after the ruling, along with the group Better Boundaries.
Emma Petty Addams, co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, said Utahns were finally getting what they voted for when they passed Proposition 4 in 2018: A fair map.
She called Utah a “special place” that stands in stark contrast to the redistricting happening nationwide, spurred by President Donald Trump, who has pushed Republicans to redraw congressional lines to maintain their narrow majority in the House. Utah’s redistricting, Addams said, is the result of Republican, Democrat and independent Utahns trying to do the opposite of gerrymandering.
“Some will co-opt this as a win for their party, and others will see this as a loss and use it as a rallying cry for theirs,” Addams said. “Let me be clear about what this case has always been about: For MWEG, we stand firmly opposed to gerrymandering, no matter which party initiates or benefits from it.”
They have members statewide with differing political beliefs, Addams said. Their goal after joining the lawsuit, she said, was to be able to look every member in the eye and “say that we did everything we could to support their constitutional rights.”
Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah, said that the new map is fair and that means all Utahns, of all political affiliations, now have a voice.
“In the next election, you will see we will have some competitive races, but there will be a reason to vote,” she said. “That is something that every voter should take to their heart.”
The plaintiffs’ attorney, David Reymann, called the talk of impeaching Gibson “irresponsible and unfortunate.” He said the judge was put in this position because “the Legislature failed to do its job and enact a legally compliant map.”
“Courts don't do this by default,” Reymann said. “They do it when the Legislature doesn't do its job.”
And just because the Legislature disagrees with Gibson’s ruling, Reymann said, doesn’t mean it's wrong.
