Utah’s political landscape is once again in the throes of change after the Utah Supreme Court delivered a decisive blow to lawmakers’ efforts to delay the redrawing of the state’s congressional districts. On Monday, September 15, 2025, the state’s highest court denied the Utah Legislature’s petition to pause a lower court’s order invalidating the current congressional map—a map that had been at the center of a years-long legal and political battle over partisan gerrymandering.
The ruling, which echoed through the halls of the state capitol and reverberated across Utah’s political spectrum, means that legislators must now move swiftly to produce a new, fairer map in time for the 2026 election. The court’s decision follows a series of legal skirmishes dating back to 2018, when voters passed Proposition 4—also known as the Better Boundaries initiative—aimed at curbing partisan manipulation of district lines by establishing an independent redistricting commission and banning gerrymandering. According to KUTV, this initiative was later repealed by the legislature in 2020 and replaced with a law that weakened the commission’s authority, prompting a lawsuit from the League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and several Salt Lake County voters.
At the heart of the dispute was the 2021 congressional map, drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature after repealing Proposition 4. Critics argued that the map split Democratic strongholds in Salt Lake County into four separate districts, effectively ensuring four safe Republican seats and diluting the voting power of Democratic and independent voters. Plaintiffs alleged this was a textbook case of unconstitutional gerrymandering, and 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson agreed. In August 2025, Judge Gibson ruled that the process used to create the 2021 map violated the Utah Constitution, ordering lawmakers to produce a new map aligned with the original intent of Proposition 4.
Legislators, however, weren’t ready to give up the fight. They requested permission to keep the 2021 map in place while they appealed Judge Gibson’s decision and worked on a new map. Both the district court and, ultimately, the Utah Supreme Court rejected these requests. In its unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court wrote, “Their complaints about the remedial process do not demonstrate that the court’s denial of the stay order is legally wrong or that the court otherwise abused its discretion. Without that, they have not shown why they should receive the extraordinary relief they seek here.”
For voting rights advocates and supporters of the original ballot initiative, the Supreme Court’s decision was a long-awaited victory. Mark Gaber, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center representing the plaintiffs, celebrated the ruling, stating on X, “One step closer to a fair congressional map for 2026!” Elizabeth Rasmussen, executive director of Better Boundaries, echoed this sentiment, saying, “Further delay would be in direct opposition to the principles of the Utah Constitution. We’re thrilled this process will move forward on the previously agreed-upon timeline, putting fair congressional maps in place by November 10th.” She added, “Utahns will now see the standards they voted for put into practice. That means fewer splits of cities and counties, compact and connected districts, preservation of neighborhoods and communities, and a ban on maps designed to give unfair advantage to politicians or parties.”
The court’s order lays out a tight schedule for the legislature. Lawmakers must publish a new proposed map by September 25, 2025, followed by a public comment period running through October 5. The legislature will then vote on the final map and submit it to the court by October 6. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are also permitted to submit their own proposed maps. Should the legislature’s map fail to meet the court’s requirements, the court has the authority to select a map submitted by plaintiffs or third parties. According to the lieutenant governor’s office, November 10 is the final deadline for selecting a map, ensuring county clerks have enough time to prepare for the 2026 congressional races.
Despite their disappointment, Utah’s top Republican legislative leaders have pledged to comply with the ruling. House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams released a joint statement acknowledging, “A rushed timeline is not the best approach for determining congressional districts nor for setting public policy. Despite this, the Legislature will move forward to the best of its ability. A committee has been formed, the court’s timeline will be followed and Utahns can provide input on the legislative map at redistricting.utah.gov starting Sept. 25.”
This latest decision is just one chapter in a complex, ongoing saga. Last summer, the Utah Supreme Court had already sided with the plaintiffs, unanimously ruling that lawmakers could not simply repeal voter-approved government reform initiatives without demonstrating a compelling government interest. That opinion sent the case back to district court, where Judge Gibson’s recent rulings have further clarified the limits of legislative power over redistricting.
Not everyone is pleased with the outcome. The Utah Democratic Party, for instance, described the legislature’s repeated attempts to delay the process as “a desperate attempt to drag its feet on redistricting.” Party Chair Brian King stated, “For too long, Republican lawmakers have chosen their voters instead of the other way around. That ends now, and we’re ready to hit the ground running once these maps are in place.”
Meanwhile, Judge Gibson’s amended order, filed earlier this month, recognized the delicate balance of power between Utah’s courts and its legislature. She wrote, “This Court overstepped its authority by ordering the Legislature to enact a new congressional plan.” Yet, her ruling maintained the court’s jurisdiction over the process, ensuring that, whether or not lawmakers submit a map, the court will select the final boundaries for the 2026 election.
The stakes in this battle extend beyond Utah’s borders, as debates over gerrymandering and the power of independent commissions have played out across the country in recent years. Utah’s experience underscores the tension between direct democracy—expressed through ballot initiatives—and legislative authority, as well as the courts’ crucial role in safeguarding constitutional principles.
As the redistricting process moves forward, all eyes will be on the legislature’s next steps and on the public’s participation during the upcoming comment period. Whether the final map comes from lawmakers or from the plaintiffs, one thing is certain: Utah’s voters will soon see the impact of their 2018 decision to demand fairer representation take tangible form—just in time for the 2026 election season to heat up.
