Utah Judge Approves Congressional Map That May Advantage Democrats

This story was produced as part of a partnership between NOTUS and The Salt Lake Tribune.
—

A Utah judge rejected new congressional boundaries proposed by Republican legislators late Monday night, instead choosing a map that will create a heavily Democratic-leaning district in Salt Lake County and shake up Utah’s political landscape.

Utah’s redistricting process has taken on heightened national significance since Republicans hold a narrow majority in the U.S. House, and as red and blue states have begun the process of shoring up congressional districts for their own advantage.

Utah Republicans have already said they plan to keep up the legal fight, which could include filing an appeal, and some lawmakers have gone as far as floating judicial impeachment.

This win for Democrats follows voters approving new congressional district lines in California earlier this month, where Democrats are also hoping to gain up to five seats.

“In short, [the Legislature’s map] does not comply with Utah law,” the judge, Dianna Gibson, wrote in her ruling. “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, which the Court discharges by adopting” a map submitted by the plaintiffs in the yearslong lawsuit.

The map Gibson selected makes a district of the northern portion of Salt Lake County, and splits Utah County into eastern and western districts, ultimately creating a district that truly favors Democrats for the first time in a quarter century.

Gibson’s decision is a watershed moment in a legal battle that has stretched nearly four years since the Legislature’s repeal of Proposition 4 — also known as the Better Boundaries initiative, adopted by voters in 2018.

Last year, the state Supreme Court ruled that legislators violated Utahns’ constitutional right to make law through the initiative process when they gutted Proposition 4 and sent the case back to Gibson for further proceedings.

In an August opinion, Gibson said “Proposition 4 is the law in Utah,” and the boundaries used in the 2022 and 2024 congressional elections did not comply with the law. She barred them from being used in the 2026 elections and required new maps to be prepared.

Republican legislators redrew the boundaries “under protest,” sending an option to the court that would have created four districts favoring Republicans, as well as a set of three statistical tests they said the judge had to use to determine if the map unduly favored the GOP.

Experts hired by the Legislature asserted that the map lawmakers approved passed those tests and that the two maps submitted by the plaintiffs failed.

The plaintiffs — the League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a handful of Utah voters — argued that the tests mandated by the Legislature were well known to be a poor measurement in a state like Utah and, taken together, would weed out maps with competitive districts and ensure that maps with four safe Republican districts would pass.

They also argued it was a backdoor attempt by GOP lawmakers to circumvent Proposition 4 and that it unlawfully limited Gibson’s discretion.

Gibson agreed, rejecting the Legislature’s constraints and opting to appraise the options in, as she put it, a more “holistic” manner.

The judge also noted that the map submitted by the Legislature was drawn while partisan data was displayed, which was expressly prohibited by Proposition 4.

That led her to choose the first of the two maps submitted by the plaintiffs, which she said “better satisfies the redistricting standards and requirements contained in Proposition 4.”

“In order to ensure that Utahns cast ballots under a congressional map that is equally apportioned under both federal and state constitutional requirements and that otherwise complies with Utah’s law on redistricting in Proposition 4, this Court must now choose a congressional map by the November 10, 2025, deadline,” Gibson wrote. “The Court’s ruling on which congressional map will be adopted is not based on any policy. Rather, it will be based on the law.”

State Rep. Candice Pierucci, a Republican who was the co-chair of the Legislature’s redistricting committee, called Gibson’s ruling a “clear example of judicial activism.”

Pierucci said that Gibson “decided that her personal opinion outweighs Utah’s Constitution and the will of the people,” and despite the Legislature’s efforts to comply with her orders, it “turns out, she was orchestrating it from the start.”

Legislative Democrats, meanwhile, said that they “feel a deep sense of hope and relief” after Gibson’s ruling and called it “a win for every Utahn.”

The map Gibson chose is the type that is often referred to as a “doughnut hole” design, with a compact district covering the northern portion of Salt Lake County, including Salt Lake City, and extending south to West Jordan, but not including Sandy.

There is a separate northern Utah district, another in the central-western portion of the state, and a large district that encompasses the eastern and southern counties.

Of the three options before Gibson, it is, by far, the most favorable to a Democratic hopeful.

An analysis by The Salt Lake Tribune found that, based on recent election results, the district concentrated in Salt Lake County would favor Democrats by more than 17 percentage points, while the other three would be dominated by Republicans by at least 2-to-1 margins.

It has been 25 years since a Utah congressional map has included a district that favors a Democrat.

Even before Gibson had chosen a map, Democratic hopefuls were jockeying for position.

Former Rep. Ben McAdams, who served one term in the House of Representatives, sent an invitation to a campaign launch party to be held Nov. 13.

“Shhh. It’s a secret … Utah’s worst-kept secret,” the invitation said at the top.

State Sen. Kathleen Riebe, a Democrat, has said she is exploring a potential bid. Others are also said to be interested.

It is unclear which seats they might seek. It also remains to be seen which seats the four current Republican members of Congress might pursue.

Federal House members are not required to live in the district they represent.

Gibson’s decision is likely not the final word in the battle over Utah’s congressional boundaries.

During the special session in which the Legislature adopted its new map, state Sen. Brady Brammer, a Republican, said it would be “malfeasance” — a term used in law as one of the justifications for impeaching a judge — for Gibson to not pick a map drawn by the Legislature.

And state House Speaker Mike Schultz said the Constitution gives the Legislature the power to create boundaries, “and we will adamantly defend that to whatever means necessary.”

Shortly after the ruling Monday night, Republican state Rep. Matt MacPherson, posted on social media that he had opened a bill file to initiate an impeachment of Gibson for a “gross abuse of power, violating the separation of powers and failing to uphold her oath of office to the Utah Constitution.”

Republican legislative leaders have previously said Gibson overstepped her judicial authority when she forced lawmakers to redraw the congressional boundaries and that they would appeal to the Utah Supreme Court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

And the Utah Republican Party has filed to gather signatures for an initiative seeking to repeal Proposition 4 entirely. If they gather around 141,000 valid signatures and meet the initiative requirements, the repeal vote will go on the 2026 ballot, but it would not affect the map used for that election.

The party had announced its plans to gather signatures for a referendum repealing the Legislature-approved map — which, if successful, could have kept it from being used in 2026 — but the party abandoned that effort. That push would have been moot now, because Gibson rejected the Legislature’s submission.

Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson had previously told the court that Nov. 10 was the latest that a map could be adopted in order for county clerks to make the necessary preparations to administer the election.

After the ruling, Henderson posted on social media that she would “comply with Judge Gibson’s order” and begin implementing the map selected by the judge “unless otherwise ordered by an appeals court.”