Listen to the article
Utah Republicans Challenge Court-Imposed Congressional Map in Federal Lawsuit
Two Republican members of Congress from Utah have filed a federal lawsuit challenging new U.S. House districts that could potentially boost Democratic chances in the upcoming election. Representatives Celeste Maloy and Burgess Owens, along with nearly a dozen local officials, submitted the legal challenge Monday, arguing that a state judge violated constitutional principles by rejecting legislature-drawn districts.
The lawsuit contends that both the U.S. and Utah constitutions explicitly grant redistricting powers to the state Legislature, asserting that “courts have no authority to draw a congressional map.” The plaintiffs are seeking a return to districts previously approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2021, unless lawmakers develop new boundaries.
With the filing deadline for reelection approaching on March 13, neither Maloy nor Owens has formally declared their candidacy. According to court documents, “their districts have been shifted to a point where the Representatives do not know which district to choose.”
The legal challenge stems from an August ruling by state Judge Dianna Gibson, who determined that the Legislature’s original districts violated voter-approved standards from 2018 designed to prevent gerrymandering—the practice of deliberately drawing districts to favor one political party. In November, Gibson rejected a replacement map proposed by lawmakers and instead imposed an alternative submitted by the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government.
The court-ordered map significantly altered Utah’s political landscape by keeping Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County almost entirely within a single district, rather than splitting it among all four congressional districts as the Legislature had done. This change potentially creates a more competitive district for Democrats in a state where Republicans currently hold all four U.S. House seats.
“The map currently in place is fair and legal,” stated Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah, responding to the new federal challenge.
Meanwhile, legislative attorneys have separately asked the Utah Supreme Court to overturn Gibson’s ruling. Adding another layer to the redistricting controversy, Governor Spencer Cox recently signed legislation expanding the state Supreme Court from five to seven justices. These new justices, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Republican-dominated Senate, could potentially participate in deciding the congressional map’s fate, though Cox has denied political motivation behind the court expansion.
Utah’s redistricting battle reflects similar conflicts unfolding across the country ahead of the 2024 elections. In New York, a judge recently ordered the redrawing of the city’s only Republican-held U.S. House seat after ruling it unconstitutionally diluted minority votes, a decision Republicans quickly appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering an appeal related to California’s redistricting, while Missouri courts weigh various challenges to maps created by that state’s Republican legislature.
The intensified focus on redistricting began last year when former President Donald Trump encouraged Texas Republicans to reconfigure districts to gain electoral advantages. This sparked mid-decade gerrymandering disputes in multiple states, including ongoing battles in Maryland and Virginia.
In a parallel effort to the legal challenge, Utah Republicans have been gathering signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would repeal the state’s anti-gerrymandering standards approved by voters in 2018. These standards were central to Judge Gibson’s rationale for rejecting the Legislature’s maps.
The Utah case highlights the growing tension between voter-approved redistricting reforms and legislative authority, with significant implications for political representation and control of the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
Redistricting is a complex issue that often intersects with partisan politics. I hope the courts in Utah can find a solution that promotes fair and representative elections.
Redistricting lawsuits are becoming increasingly common, as political parties seek to gain electoral advantages. It will be interesting to see how this case in Utah unfolds.
Lawsuits over redistricting are becoming increasingly common across the country. This case in Utah appears to be the latest example of partisan battles over electoral maps.
Interesting legal battle over redistricting in Utah. I’m curious to see how the courts rule on the balance of legislative and judicial powers in this case.
This lawsuit highlights the ongoing debates around gerrymandering and the role of the courts in shaping electoral districts. It will be important to follow the legal proceedings closely.
Redistricting is a complex and politically charged issue. I’m interested to learn more about the specific arguments made by the Republican representatives in this case.
From the summary, it seems the core issue is whether the courts have the authority to draw new district boundaries or if that power solely lies with the state legislature.
The timing of this lawsuit, with the filing deadline looming, adds an extra layer of urgency. I wonder how the courts will balance the competing constitutional claims and practical considerations.
Redistricting is always a tricky and contentious issue. I hope the courts can find a fair and impartial solution that upholds democratic principles.
This case raises important questions about the role of the judiciary in the redistricting process. I’m curious to see how the courts navigate the balance of powers at play.
From the details provided, it seems the Republican representatives are arguing the courts overstepped their authority by rejecting the legislature-drawn districts.