Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- Judge Dianna Gibson is considering motions in Utah's redistricting legal dispute that could dismiss or resolve the case.
- The Utah Supreme Court previously ruled in favor of the voter initiative, Proposition 4, and sent it back to the court.
- Attorneys argued Friday whether statute replacing the initiative was unconstitutional.
SALT LAKE CITY — A 3rd District Judge is now considering motions that could end the redistricting legal dispute between voter-initiative passed Proposition 4 and the Utah Legislature's bill replacing it.
After hearing over three hours of arguments on a motion from each side for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss from the Legislature, Dianna Gibson said she would file a ruling "as quickly as possible."
The lawsuit was filed after the Utah Legislature replaced a statute created through a voter-approved proposition, changing many of its requirements but keeping the requirement to establish a commission to draw maps. The Legislature, however, could decide whether or not to use the maps recommended by the commission.
The Utah Supreme Court unanimously ruled in July in favor of the voter initiative, ruling that the Legislature overstepped when altering it. The court overturned a decision to dismiss one of the counts and asked the district court to reconsider it.
Arguments for the proposition
Aseem Mulji, the attorney for the organizations that filed the lawsuit — including the Utah League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and individuals — said they felt Proposition 4 in 2018 included comprehensive gerrymandering reforms. He said the Legislature replaced it with what he considers "severely partisan gerrymandered congressional districts."
He claimed the Legislature's attorneys had the burden to justify the Legislature's replacement, SB200 in 2020, was constitutional and have not. He said the Legislature is required to redistrict every 10 years, but that time frame does not mean the Legislature is also given the exclusive right to determine how it is done.
"Whenever the constitution grants the Legislature any sort of authority … you have to understand that to mean that the people were granted the same authority," he said, claiming the people have "co-equal legislative authority."
Mulji argued that the Legislature can't violate those rights.
To address an argument that the initiative would require the Legislature to appropriate funds, he said turning down anything with a cost would eliminate the ability to reform the government.
He said the requirement in Proposition 4 for the Legislature to provide a report about its decision was not unordinary and that there is no evidence that allowing a 10-day comment period would lead to missing a deadline.
Mulji said people determined, through their vote, that they wanted redistricting criteria that were flexible but predictable.
"The people were entitled to make their policy choice," he said.
If the judge rules in his favor, he said he wants the court to end the Legislature's statute and the map created under its rules and ensure that a new map is created under the Proposition 4 statute, which would be used in the 2026 election.
Arguments for the Legislature's statute
Tyler Green, the attorney representing the Utah Legislature, argued that the proposition was an unconstitutional attempt to reform the government and, as such, would be a "legal nullity."
He cited problems with the proposition, specifically the requirement that the Legislature not make any changes to the maps proposed by the redistricting commission but would need to either accept or reject them as is, which he said is different from any other ordinary process of the Legislature.
Green said it forces the Legislature to use a new set of rules when both the House and the Senate have the ability under the constitution to make their own rules.
"This is something different; this is a statute not enacted by the Legislature, forcing the Legislature to consider … something on the House floor in a way that no other piece of legislation or anything else is considered. That's a constitutional problem," he said.
He also said the detailed report which would be required within seven days of the Legislature rejecting the proposed maps for its own maps is not something required in any other legislative process.
Green said the lawmakers he represents have taken oaths to make the best constitutional judgments and said even if their analysis wasn't perfect, they were careful with their decisions.
"The constitution has to be the measuring stick," he said.
He said the bill that created the current statute replacing Proposition 4 removed anything the Legislature saw as a constitutional problem. He shared quotes from a press conference where Better Boundaries, which pushed for the voter initiative, and Democratic legislators expressed support for the bill that replaced it and emphasized that they agreed the bill maintained the core of the proposition.
"For us to say they were wrong five years later would be a surprise to them," he said.
Mulji told Gibson she should not consider these statements from Better Boundaries, as they are not relevant to the question and it did not file the lawsuit.
