When Utah’s 3rd District Court struck down the Legislature’s latest congressional map last month, the reactions came fast. Members of the legislature and GOP leaders called it judicial activism. Reform advocates defended it. And many Utahns were left wondering what the ruling actually said.
The truth is simpler—and more revealing—than the political sound bites suggest. The decision wasn’t about giving one party an advantage. It was about whether lawmakers can rewrite rules that voters already put in place.
A Summary of the Judge’s Ruling
Judge Dianna Gibson permanently blocked the Legislature’s latest redistricting laws—S.B. 1011 and S.B. 1012 (“Map C”)—as unconstitutional. She reaffirmed that Proposition 4, the 2018 “Better Boundaries” initiative, is binding state law.
The court found that Map C violated Proposition 4’s requirement for neutrality and that the Legislature’s new definition of “partisan fairness” effectively guaranteed a Republican advantage. Because the 2026 election calendar required final districts by November 10, 2025, the judge adopted the plaintiffs’ “Map 1” as a temporary remedy.
She called the step “an unwelcome obligation,” but said the court was responsible for ensuring that Utah had a lawful map in place for the next election.
What Proposition 4 Actually Is
Proposition 4, approved by voters in 2018, created an Independent Redistricting Commission and a set of neutral, mandatory standards for how maps must be drawn. Those standards include:
- Equal population among districts
- Contiguity and compactness
- Minimizing splits of counties and cities
- Respecting communities of interest
- Following natural and geographic boundaries
- And, most importantly, no map may purposefully or unduly favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent
The Advisory vs. the Mandatory Parts
| Part | Who Controls It | Binding? |
| Independent Commission’s map recommendations | Advisory | Legislature could reject them but had to explain why |
| Anti-gerrymandering standards (listed above) | Mandatory | Legislature must follow; courts can enforce |
That distinction has often been blurred in political statements. The recommendations were advisory, but the rules became law. The Utah Supreme Court confirmed that voters used their constitutional right “to alter or reform their government,” making Proposition 4’s protections legally enforceable.
The First Map and Why It Failed
After the 2020 Census, the Legislature repealed Proposition 4 through S.B. 200 and passed a new congressional map that gave Republicans all four seats. Reform groups sued, and in 2024 the Utah Supreme Court (2024 UT 21) ruled that repeal unconstitutional. The Court said lawmakers had impaired the people’s constitutional right to reform their government.
Judge Gibson’s follow-up order in August 2025 implemented that decision, voided the 2021 map, and required a lawful replacement by November 10 for the next election cycle.
The Most Recent Map and Why It Failed
To comply, the Legislature passed S.B. 1011 and S.B. 1012 (Map C). But the court found both unconstitutional:
- Partisan data was visible during map-drawing. The Legislature’s consultant, Dr. Sean Trende, testified that he drew Map C “with partisan political data displayed on the screen.” That violated Proposition 4’s rule against using partisan or incumbent data.
- Neutral criteria were ignored. The map split Salt Lake County and the city of Millcreek, creating non-compact shapes that diluted communities of interest.
- Statistical tests showed bias. Political scientist Dr. Jowei Chen generated 10 000 computer-simulated maps following Proposition 4’s neutral criteria. Almost every one produced three Republican-leaning and one Democratic-leaning district—the pattern Utah’s geography naturally yields. Map C produced four Republican seats, making it more partisan than 99 percent of neutral alternatives.
Judge Gibson concluded that Map C “unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats,” violating both the initiative and the Utah Constitution.
Why the Judge Had to Choose the Latest Map
Once the court invalidated the Legislature’s plan, Utah faced an approaching legal deadline. The Lieutenant Governor must certify district boundaries by early November so candidates can file for the 2026 election. With no valid map and no time left for another legislative session, the court had to act.
Judge Gibson adopted Plaintiffs’ Map 1, calling it “the most neutral and compliant option available.” It wasn’t chosen for partisan outcome—it was chosen to meet the law’s deadline while following the standards voters approved.
Why This Matters — and the Legislature’s Eroding Trust
Across this entire process—from repealing Proposition 4 in 2020 to redrawing lines in 2025—key facts have often been left out. Many officials still describe Proposition 4 as “advisory,” or accuse the court of “ignoring the voters,” when the record shows the court was enforcing what voters enacted.
When leaders summarize only the parts that fit their narrative, they erode confidence. And in 2025, the public doesn’t have to take anyone’s word for it. Any Utahn can drop the court’s ruling into an AI summarizer or search tool and see exactly what it says and ask follow-up questions. The truth is instantly verifiable. The gap between what people are told and what they can check for themselves is how trust collapses.
Where We Go From Here
The Legislature is expected to appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, which will decide whether Judge Gibson correctly applied the alter-or-reform clause and Proposition 4’s binding standards. That ruling will determine how Utah draws its congressional lines for 2026—but the larger issue is how we respond.
It’s easy to follow popular outrage—to echo slogans about “judicial overreach.” But outrage, especially when based on only some of the facts, isn’t the same as principle. The rule of law, not the loudest reaction, has to guide us.
Utahns now have tools to read and understand these rulings for themselves. The question is whether our leaders will respect that informed public—or continue telling partial stories. If Utah wants to rebuild trust, it won’t come from doubling down on partisan talking points. It will come from following the law voters already passed, acknowledging the full record, and telling the truth even when it’s inconvenient.
TL;DR
The Legislature doesn’t have unlimited power under Proposition 4.
After ignoring the law twice, it left the court no choice but to act before the election deadline.
The surprise isn’t that the judge intervened—it’s that lawmakers thought she wouldn’t.
Share this article.
UTElection.info is non-commercial and independent. Sharing helps more Utahns get clear, factual information instead of half-told stories.
Thank you for the insightful article.
This is great information. I hope lots people read it.
The Utah Constitution clearly gives the power of map drawing to the Legislature. It’s one the for the judge to rule against Map C, but then to put in place a map not drawn by the Legislature goes against the Constitution.
If the legislature had drawn a politically neutral, legal map as mandated by prop, 4 the judge would not have had to choose from another map before the deadline. They put themselves against a wall by putting forth a partisan drawn map and refusing to follow the requirements laid out in prop 4.
The article covered the constitutional aspect. The voters mandated a change to the constitution, and the legislature not only failed to implement it, but they also took action to obstruct the mandate. Constitutionally, the Judicial branch is required to step in as a check on the Legislature’s dereliction of duty.
I just moved to Utah and appreciate your explanation of the matter!