Redistricting: Federal panel denies bid to overturn Utah’s court-ordered congressional map

People vote at the Main Library in Salt Lake City on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Photo: Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch

The ruling leaves no time for additional litigation challenging the new map ahead of 2026 elections — unless lawmakers move the deadline again

This article was written by Katie McKellar.

Anti-gerrymandering groups in Utah’s yearslong redistricting battle celebrated another victory on Monday when a three-judge U.S. District Court panel denied a bid by two of Utah’s sitting Republican congress members to overturn the state’s new court-ordered congressional map.

The judges’ ruling affirmed that Utah’s 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson had the power to set new congressional boundaries after she determined the Utah Legislature failed to adopt a lawful map.

Gibson’s court-ordered map — which she picked to replace the Legislature’s 2021 boundaries after she determined they were “unlawful” because they were drawn using an unconstitutional process — creates one Democratic district and three Republican districts.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, 10th Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich and U.S. District Judge Holly Teeter came the morning of the final day that attorneys for Utah’s top election official, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, said they needed a decision on which map would govern the 2026 elections.

In a statement posted on social media, Utah Reps. Celeste Maloy, Burgess Owens and the other plaintiffs in the federal case reacted to the decision with “profound disappointment but respect for the Court’s careful review.”

“This case concerns the Constitution’s allocation of authority over federal elections, a question of lasting importance beyond any single election cycle,” they said. “Having these issues heard has strengthened public understanding and clarified what is at stake. We remain convinced that the Constitution assigns this responsibility to the State’s lawmaking authority and that this principle is essential to preserving constitutional order and the rule of law.”

Late last year, Gibson had picked a remedial map drawn by plaintiffs in a redistricting lawsuit that’s spent years winding its way through Utah’s courts after she determined the one proposed by the Utah Legislature didn’t adhere to neutral map-drawing standards required by Proposition 4, a voter-approved ballot initiative that created an independent redistricting process.

In anticipation of contesting Gibson’s court-ordered map, Utah lawmakers had already pushed back filing deadlines once. Monday’s ruling likely means they’ve run out of time for more legal maneuvers to get a different map in place for the 2026 elections.

The federal ruling means “Utah’s new congressional map is here to stay,” Better Boundaries, the anti-gerrymandering group that sponsored Proposition 4 eight years ago, announced in a news release reacting to Monday’s ruling.

“Today’s federal ruling is once again a win for the majority of Utah voters who approved Prop 4 in 2018,” said Elizabeth Rasmussen, executive director of Better Boundaries. “While discussions about representation and redistricting will likely continue, this decision provides greater certainty that power is derived from the people. Utahns can now prepare for future elections and the opportunity to have their voices heard. Voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around.”

Gov. Spencer Cox told reporters he “wasn’t surprised” by the ruling.

“I think that most people thought that was a bit of a long shot, certainly one that was worth trying. But there was nothing in that order that surprised anyone,” the governor said. “I think all the attorneys were prepared for that.”

Asked what comes next in Utah’s redistricting legal fight, Cox said “I have no idea.”

“We’ll leave that to the attorneys to talk about,” he said.

Adams said he’d “absolutely” like to see Maloy and Owens appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We just keep going,” he said. “The attorneys will keep working. I believe we did the right thing … Everybody I talked to knows that the new map was gerrymandered.”

Will Utah lawmakers try again to push back deadlines to allow time for a new map?

It’s possible lawmakers could try to push back candidate filing deadlines again — but it’s not clear whether they will. When asked whether that was being considered, one of Utah’s most powerful Republican lawmakers, Senate President Stuart Adams, didn’t give reporters a firm answer.

“There probably is” appetite to push back deadlines again, Adams said, though he added he’d like to see a resolution on Utah’s state-level redistricting lawsuit so lawmakers can appeal the full case to the Utah Supreme Court.

Last week, the state’s highest court rejected the Legislature’s appeal because the district court case hasn’t been fully resolved, with several counts still being litigated.

“When are we ever going to get a (final) decision out of Judge Gibson?” Adams said Monday. “We’re just slow-baking this past the election.”

Pressed if he is now resigned to Gibson’s court-ordered map being the map to govern the 2026 elections while they continue to litigate the issue, Adams said: “Not yet, but we’re getting close.”

House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, also didn’t rule out moving candidate filing deadlines again — but he didn’t promise it either.

“We’re having that conversation. We’re looking at what the options are,” Schultz told reporters. “These are conversations that we’re having. We have not made any final decisions.”

Pressed on whether the court-ordered map will stand for the 2026 elections, the House speaker said “unfortunately” Republican lawmakers now believe their appeal of the larger redistricting lawsuit still playing out in district court is their “best chance” to contest the map.

Even though the Utah Supreme Court said in its ruling last week that the Legislature could have “immediately appealed” Gibson’s Aug. 25 order that determined the Legislature unconstitutionally repealed and replaced Proposition 4, the Legislature’s attorneys didn’t do so within the required 30-day window. They also could have immediately appealed Gibson’s Nov. 10 order that selected the court-ordered map within 30 days, but they didn’t.

Because “no claim has been certified as final,” the Utah Supreme Court last week dismissed the Legislature’s partial appeal because it said it lacked jurisdiction.

Schultz said “we’re extremely disappointed” that Gibson has “not let” the rest of the redistricting case move forward.

“We ask, what else do (the plaintiffs) want?” Schultz said. “Everything that they have asked for, they’ve gotten.”

Monday’s ruling is “certainly not the end of the road,” Schultz said, but he did call it a “huge setback for this election cycle.”

“Again, we’ll continue to do all we can as we’re … looking for options,” Schultz said, though he added that “ultimately, at the end of the day, it’ll be the people’s decision with Proposition 4 being on the ballot.”

Now underway is an effort spearheaded by the Utah Republican Party and the group Utahns for Representative Government to ask voters to repeal Proposition 4 during this year’s November election.

The group has submitted more than 200,000 signatures in an effort to put the question on the ballot, and as of Monday at least 123,449 signatures had been verified — 17,299 away from the 140,748 needed for it to qualify. Clerks have until March 7 to verify signatures, but then opposition groups have up to 45 days to encourage voters to remove their signatures. An official answer to whether the Proposition 4 repeal will appear on the November ballot likely won’t come until April.

One judge expresses reservations

Though Monday’s ruling was unanimous, Tymkovich did express “some reservations” in the opinion.

He noted that after the Utah Supreme Court in July 2024 remanded the state case back to Gibson’s courtroom, she didn’t hold a hearing on summary judgement until January 2025. Then parties waited months for subsequent rulings, he wrote, and Gibson “waited until moments before” the Nov. 10 deadline to strike down the Legislature’s preferred map and pick the plaintiffs’ instead, “leaving no room for legislative accommodation of the court’s critique.”

“The case is undoubtedly complex and the issues are worthy of careful consideration,” Tymkovich wrote. “But by waiting more than a year after remand to issue a ruling, and pressing against the Lieutenant Governor’s November deadline, the district court created timing and remedy issues that otherwise might not exist.”

He added that Gibson’s adoption “of a map proposed by an undoubtedly interested, non-governmental party unnecessarily raises doubts about the fairness of the process. None of this need have happened.”

“State courts and legislatures have a constitutional duty under the Elections Clause to set the conditions for federal elections,” Tymkovich wrote. “Diligent pursuit of that duty respects the vital role of public participation in our republic.”

Pro-democracy groups celebrate

In reaction to Monday’s ruling in federal court, national and local anti-gerrymandering groups celebrated.

Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation — which filed an amicus brief in the federal suit opposing the effort to block Utah’s court-ordered map — called it a “major victory.”

“Ever since a state court struck down Utah’s illegal gerrymander and upheld citizen-enacted redistricting reforms, too many politicians have responded shamefully by doing all they can to circumvent the will of Utah voters — and those efforts are not stopping,” she said. “It is critical to ensure that Utah’s fair congressional map remains in place for the rest of the decade, and we will continue to fight to make sure that happens.”

The League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a handful of Salt Lake County Voters who brought the initial lawsuit that eventually led to Utah’s court-ordered map issued statements celebrating the decision as another victory.

In reaction to Monday’s ruling in federal court, the League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a handful of Salt Lake County Voters who brought the initial lawsuit that eventually led to Utah’s court-ordered map issued statements celebrating the decision as another victory.

“Utah voters should not have to navigate uncertainty to participate in their elections,” said Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah. “We are pleased the court protected this fair map and we remain focused on protecting voters’ ability to make their voices heard. We only wish that the futile attempts to undermine this fair map would cease so we could focus on what is important to Utahns.”

“Today’s federal court decision is a significant win for Utah voters,” said Emma Petty Addams, co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government. “This federal lawsuit sought to undo a lawful, court–ordered congressional map. The court’s decision to reject that effort is an important affirmation that the rule of law matters. Utah voters deserve fair representation, and this victory is about protecting those voters — not politicians.”

Adams continued to argue that Gibson’s court-ordered map is “gerrymandered” by creating a Democratic-majority district concentrated around Salt Lake City.

“Right now we have the most Democrat district possible, maybe in the United States, and three of the most Republican Districts, maybe, in the United States,” Adams said. “And I don’t think that’s what the voters intended, to make … four polarized districts, three polarized Republicans and one polarized Democratic. I think the map is problematic.”

The plaintiffs in Utah’s redistricting lawsuit, however, argued that because Proposition 4 — a prioritizes minimizing city and county splits, a compact district concentrated around northern Salt Lake County is the natural result of Utah’s “political geography.”

The Utah Democratic Party also issued a statement saying the ruling was a “clear and resounding win for the people of Utah.”

“This decision all but ensures that Utahns will have fair and accountable representation in Congress, free from partisan interference or political games,” the Utah Democratic Party said. “For too long, attempts have been made to undermine the will of the people, but today the courts have affirmed that democracy cannot be sidelined. Utahns have made their choice, and no political maneuvering can take that away. This is a victory not just for fair maps, but for the principle that the people’s voice is paramount in shaping our state’s future.