- A Utah judge approved a new congressional map for the 2026 midterms.
- The map increases competition in two districts, challenging Republican dominance.
- Judge Gibson labeled the previous map an "extreme partisan outlier."
SALT LAKE CITY — A judge has thrown out a new U.S. congressional map passed by the Republican-led Legislature in favor of an alternative map.
The map could reshape Utah's representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, as at least two of the four congressional districts are significantly more competitive than the current map, which some say gives Republicans strong advantages in each district.
The decision, handed down by 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson late Monday, was celebrated by Democratic groups and blasted by Republican lawmakers. However, plaintiffs in the case against the state's congressional map contend that the ruling is more of a win for democracy.
"The people of Utah are getting what we voted for seven years ago: a fair map," said Emma Petty Addams, co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, one of the groups behind the lawsuit, as she stood outside of Matheson Courthouse Tuesday.
It's unclear how long it will last, though. The state will "likely" file an emergency appeal, said Utah Lt. Gov. Diedre Henderson, whose office oversees state elections.
"The Utah Constitution clearly states that it is the responsibility of the Legislature to divide the state into congressional districts. While I respect the court's role in our system, no judge, and certainly no advocacy group, can usurp that constitutional authority," added Gov. Spencer Cox, in a statement. "For this reason, I fully support the Legislature appealing the court's decision."
Yet, with the start date for congressional candidate filing looming, she said the state will prepare for the new boundaries in the upcoming midterm elections, barring a quick appellate court ruling to overturn the decision.
Utah's new map
In the 91-page decision, Gibson called the latest legislative map an "extreme partisan outlier" that illegally gave Republicans an advantage. The Republican-drawn plan split Salt Lake County, where most of the state's Democrats reside, in half.
"Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that Map C was drawn with the purpose to favor Republicans," she wrote.
She picked the plaintiffs' "Map 1" option instead, writing that it showed "no sign of partisan favoritism" and better divides populations equally, with Midvale being the only municipality divided by the boundaries. The decision, she wrote, is based on language from Proposition 4 — an anti-gerrymandering initiative that Utahns approved in 2018 — and nonpartisan metrics that a University of Michigan electoral geography expert had testified during court proceedings.
The map leaves Salt Lake County mostly intact as the new District 1, while most parts south of Midvale fall into District 4, along with parts of Utah County and central Utah. District 2 would cover most areas north of Salt Lake County, while District 3 encompasses the rest of the state, including Provo and the Wasatch Back, as well as eastern and southern Utah.
It marked the latest development in a yearslong fight over who gets to draw political boundaries in the state and how.
Lawmakers reached a compromise with Proposition 4 organizers and replaced the measure in 2021, turning a newly established independent redistricting commission for drawing nonpartisan maps into an advisory role. They then ignored the commission's recommendations and adopted their own maps, splitting Salt Lake County voters into all four districts and making every seat all but unwinnable for Democrats, sparking the lawsuit that was filed in 2022.
The Utah Supreme Court agreed that lawmakers had overstepped their authority and sent the issue back to the district court. Gibson threw out the current map in August, saying it stemmed from an unconstitutional act, and told lawmakers to draw new maps, which they begrudgingly did.
Monday's ruling followed several days of lengthy hearings, during which attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the Legislature's new map represented a partisan outlier and that the expert who designed maps for lawmakers used an online tool with access to partisan data, in violation of Proposition 4's requirements.
The political fallout
Gibson's ruling continued to draw mixed reactions on Tuesday.
Republican state lawmaker Candice Pierucci, who helped lead the Legislature's map drawing, called the decision "a clear example of judicial activism" in a post on the social media platform X. The ruling was "the arrogance of a judge playing king from the bench," added Utah Republican Party Chairman Robert Axson.
In a joint statement Tuesday, Utah Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz called the new map "a clearly gerrymandered map."
"This is not fair to Utahns and is deeply disappointing," they said. "This isn't how government should work. ... Judges are meant to uphold the law as written, not rewrite it to serve political ends. Nothing in Utah's constitution gives the courts authority to impose maps designed by private groups."
Rep. Matt MacPherson, R-West Valley City, wrote Monday night that he had opened a bill to file articles of impeachment against Gibson "for gross abuse of power, violating the separation of powers and failing to uphold her oath of office to the Utah Constitution." He clarified on Tuesday that he'd look for a poll of his colleagues before moving forward with that bill.
Democratic representatives, on the other hand, celebrated the decision. Brian King, chairman of the Utah Democratic Party, asserted that Republican lawmakers had been "fighting tooth and nail to prevent the people's voice from being heard" since the proposition passed in 2018, and the ruling provides the anti-gerrymandering that Utahns voted for.
"It's clear that the GOP is terrified of voters actually getting a voice in who represents them in Congress," he said, adding that the new map can hold congressional leaders "accountable" for "abandoning everyday Utahns in favor of Donald Trump and wealthy special interests."
U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene, the chair of the party's national congressional campaign arm, called it a "victory for every Utahn who believes voters — not politicians — should decide who their representatives are."
Those who fought the maps in court say they believe partisan interests will dictate how most people respond to the ruling, but they say partisan interests weren't behind their decision to support the 2018 proposition or challenge the state's 2021 maps. They argue that removing gerrymandering can improve community interest in politics and create incentives for politicians to listen to constituents.
"We stand firmly opposed to gerrymandering, no matter which party initiates or benefits from it," Petty Addams said. "Our persistence was born out of love (for) the people of the state and our country, and every step of the way, we've tried to engage in a way that will build unity and support peace."
What happens next?
The approval of the new map is expected to draw interest from Democrats who now have a realistic chance at winning, including former Rep. Ben McAdams, the last Utah Democrat to serve at the federal level before losing to Rep. Burgess Owens in 2020. State Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, has also said she's considering throwing her hat in the ring after running in a special election to replace former Rep. Chris Stewart in 2023.
But the congressional map battle appears far from over. In addition to Henderson, other state lawmakers have said they will continue to appeal Gibson's ruling, and the Utah Republican Party has launched an initiative to repeal Proposition 4 altogether. Plaintiffs in the case said they're preparing for a potential appeal to Monday's ruling and are also tracking the initiative to repeal the proposition.
The case is not yet final because of what's potentially ahead, said David Reymann, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.
"We've always known ... (the state) has disagreed with even the premise of Proposition 4. We expect that they will appeal (the ruling)," he said, noting that he doesn't know if the state will seek a stay delaying when the new map goes into effect, and that he disagrees that Gibson violated the Constitution with her ruling.
That said, the 2026 election clock is also ticking. In addition to an appeal, Henderson said her office will work toward finalizing the new congressional boundaries "unless otherwise ordered by an appeals court," because it will take "weeks of meticulous work" for the state and counties to have a map ready for the election cycle. The state's candidate filing period begins in January.
Should a stay be implemented, Reymann said he doesn't know which map will be in place come Election Day 2026.
That could be the next chapter in the yearslong saga.
