Utah’s political landscape is once again the stage for a fierce battle over congressional redistricting, with lawmakers and citizens alike watching closely as the process unfolds under a court’s watchful eye. On September 24, 2025, the Utah Legislative Redistricting Committee convened for its second and final court-mandated hearing to redraw the state’s congressional maps—a process that’s become as much about transparency and fairness as it is about lines on a map.
The stakes are high. According to ABC4, the meeting lasted about three hours, following a marathon five-hour session just two days earlier. Despite the hours logged, no maps or bills were voted on, leaving Utahns waiting for answers. Republican House Chair Candice Pierucci made it clear that the real action would come on October 6, when the committee would vote on the maps, just hours before a full legislative vote during a special session.
This redistricting round wasn’t supposed to happen. Normally, states redraw their legislative boundaries early in the decade after new census data. But as NPR highlights, a Utah judge ruled the state’s 2021 maps unconstitutional, forcing lawmakers back to the drawing board. The court’s order, issued by Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson, required the legislature to publish their proposed map by September 25. However, the order didn’t specify whether lawmakers could release multiple maps, leaving room for debate—and plenty of it.
At the heart of the dispute is Proposition 4, a ballot initiative narrowly approved by Utah voters in 2018. Proposition 4 created an independent redistricting commission and banned partisan gerrymandering. But the Legislature repealed key elements of the initiative in 2020, weakening the commission and removing the explicit ban on gerrymandering. That move set off a legal challenge, and in August 2025, a judge ruled that the Legislature’s override was unconstitutional, reinstating Proposition 4’s requirements and voiding the previous maps.
During the September 24 hearing, lawmakers reviewed five maps released by Republicans and one new map from the two Democrats on the committee. The committee is made up of ten state lawmakers—eight Republicans and two Democrats. Each side brought in its own expert to analyze the maps, but the debate quickly shifted from geography to allegations of partisan bias.
Democratic Representative Doug Owens criticized the GOP’s preferred method for testing partisan fairness, known as the Partisan Bias Test. Owens pointed out that Utah’s current congressional maps—often accused of being gerrymandered—passed this test, raising questions about its effectiveness. "What we are saying, is there is a process in place which does not fairly assess whether we are punishing a party," Owens argued, according to ABC4. He further alleged that the Republicans’ expert, Sean Trende, used partisan data that was not shared with Democrats, a practice forbidden by Proposition 4. "We suspect there was a data set incorporated into the test that Doctor Trende applied, and we are unable to verify," he said. "It’s as if we’re told to buy a car, and we can’t lift the hood and look."
That accusation drew a sharp response from Senate Chair Scott Sandall. "You just demeaned us to the audience, to the public," Sandall shot back. "I will not have that. You called us, somehow hiding or lying about everything that we’ve presented to say that these maps were not developed with any political data. You just misrepresented that, and that’s out of order." Owens later clarified that his concerns were directed at the process, not at committee members personally.
The Democrats’ map, presented by Minority Leader Sen. Luz Escamilla and Rep. Owens with help from expert Daniel Magleby, was itself the subject of intense scrutiny. Magleby, an associate professor at Binghamton University, was grilled by Republicans not only about the map—which split 14 municipalities and four counties, far more than the Republican-drawn options—but also about his past social media posts. Rep. Calvin Roberts read aloud Magleby’s tweets, including one describing the Legislature as "straight out of the authoritarian playbook," and questioned whether Democrats were comfortable with such optics. Escamilla replied that she was not concerned, emphasizing that both parties had relied on their own experts due to limited access to each other’s data. "Dr. Trende looks to me very suspicious, like Dr. Magleby looks for you. But they are experts in their areas," she said.
The debate over how to test for partisan bias was a recurring theme. Magleby critiqued Trende’s methods for analyzing partisan symmetry, arguing that analysis should only occur after maps are drawn, as required by Proposition 4. Owens echoed this, suggesting that pre-analysis using partisan data would be illegal. The Republican maps, meanwhile, were praised by some committee members for respecting geographical boundaries and mixing urban and rural areas, while others criticized the Democratic map for splitting neighborhoods and even individual streets.
Public comment played a significant role in the proceedings. Some Utahns argued that districts should blend urban and rural interests, while others insisted these areas should be kept separate, given their differing priorities. Committee Chair Pierucci encouraged public participation, saying, "We value and want your input on the proposed maps," but noted that comments related to partisanship could not be considered.
All maps for consideration had to be submitted by September 25, starting a 10-day public comment period. After this, the committee will meet on October 6 to choose a map to recommend to the full Legislature. The chosen map will then be submitted to Judge Gibson, who must confirm it by November 10 so preparations for the 2026 midterm elections can begin. Plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit are also required to submit their own maps by October 6 for an evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 23-24. If the court finds that the Legislature’s map violates Proposition 4, the plaintiffs’ map could be selected instead.
This battle over redistricting is not unique to Utah. As NPR reports, several states are redrawing their legislative boundaries mid-decade, influenced by national political strategies. Former President Trump has urged Republican-led states to redraw maps to secure more House seats ahead of the 2026 midterms, while Democrats in states like California are pursuing similar tactics. In Utah, the previous map divided Salt Lake County—the state’s most populous and Democratic-leaning area—among four districts, making all U.S. House seats safe for Republicans. The new proposals, however, could give Democrats a fighting chance in at least one district.
Utah’s redistricting saga is a microcosm of the national struggle over who gets to draw the lines—and how those lines shape political power. As the process moves toward its October climax, all eyes are on the committee, the courts, and the citizens whose voices may finally tip the scales.
The coming weeks promise more debate, more scrutiny, and perhaps, at long last, a map that reflects the will of Utah’s voters.
