The race is on.
Armed with a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling, voter rights groups asked a district judge on Wednesday to toss out Utah’s congressional maps, contending they violate the will of the people as expressed in a 2018 ballot initiative.
But, will the courts rule on the motion before voters decide the issue themselves in the November election?
The core question is whether the Utah Legislature has the power to gut a ballot initiative — approved by a majority of Utah voters — that lawmakers can’t draw political districts to benefit one party to the detriment of another.
In 2018, Utah voters approved, by a narrow margin, Proposition 4, which established an independent redistricting commission and banned such political gerrymandering.
But the Republican supermajority in the Legislature rewrote the law, allowing them to ignore the commission’s maps and instead adopt congressional boundaries that split Salt Lake County — one of the most Democratic areas in the state — into four parts. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue the split dilutes the voice of voters in the area.
Last month, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Legislature needs a “compelling state interest” in order to undo the people’s right to pass a ballot initiative that changes the form of government.
In a motion Wednesday, attorneys for The League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and several individuals impacted by the maps argued the Legislature acted on a whim in undoing the will of voters and Utah’s congressional boundaries should be redrawn.
“It is undisputed that the current congressional map was not enacted pursuant to Proposition 4′s ‘standards, procedures, and requirements’ regarding nonpartisan redistricting,” the motion argues, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling. “Because it was not enacted pursuant to Proposition 4′s requirements, ‘the Congressional Map cannot stand.’”
The court filing starts a race against the clock.
That’s because Republican legislators, upset with the Supreme Court’s decision, called themselves into a special session last week to propose an amendment to Utah’s constitution that would make clear that lawmakers can amend or repeal any initiative passed by Utahns.
Ultimately, voters will still have the final say in November’s general election.
Until then, the court’s protection of ballot measures remains in effect, meaning the courts could invalidate the Legislature’s maps on the grounds that they defied the will of voters.
Based on that ruling, lawyers for the plaintiffs ask the court to reverse the portions of the Legislature’s acts that undid the will of voters, throw out the Legislature’s congressional maps and to ensure a new map — that comports with the ballot initiative — is in place in time for the 2026 elections. The court’s decision will not impact the congressional boundaries in this year’s election.
In the meantime, a coalition of groups that includes Better Boundaries — the group that backed Proposition 4 — has launched a campaign against the lawmakers’ proposed constitutional amendment.
If the constitutional amendment fails and the Supreme Court’s ruling stands, proponents of the anti-gerrymandering effort believe that there is no way that the congressional maps will hold up to the court’s scrutiny.
But beyond the congressional maps, the reversal to the standards in Proposition 4 may also require the Legislature to adopt legislative and school board maps that meet the criteria in the ballot initiative — specifically that they be drawn independent of partisan gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering motion by Robert Gehrke on Scribd
If the constitutional amendment clarifying that lawmakers can change or repeal ballot initiatives is approved by voters in November — because it is retroactive — the plaintiffs’ arguments that hinge on the Supreme Court ruling would likely be nullified, and all of the boundaries drawn by the Legislature would be considered valid.
Also, plaintiffs will have to fall back on other claims pending before the court that the gerrymandered maps violate voters’ constitutional right to a meaningful vote and representation.
There are 68 days until the election.
