Judge orders Utah to redraw congressional map ahead of 2026 midterms

Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that Federal Judges have no business in this?

This has to be the 3rd state that had a ruling like this. Looks like the democrats are going to get other states to offset TX, the usual way. Have judge’s order them to create democrat districts.

New Mexico did this a couple years back. Three CDs with one consistently voting Republican. Gerrymandered it so that Rs will never win a CD in NM again.

Yes, they did.

"Funny how the Judges have no problem with the rat rigged districts."

I'd be surprised if the gutless Republicans ever challenged any of them.

Actually you are probably right

This is an unconstitutional order.

Even if the judge rules that the current map is in violation, the judge cannot impose a 30 day limit to redraw the map.

This order strikes me as an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. The judge can order the legislature to draw a new map, but it cannot tell the legislature how to conduct its business. What if there is other business currently on the calendar, in conference, in debate? The judge has no authority to tell the legislature how to operate.

Regular order looks like this:

It takes time for the House committee to draw the map, for the committee to vote it out of committee, for the floor debate over the map, for amendments to the map sent back to the committee, for the committee to revote the amended map back to the whole House, for the House to vote to pass the map, and then send the map to the Senate where it starts all over again.

There is no requirement that a new map must be ready for the 2026 mid-term election, as that is a political timing and not a functional one. A blind court shouldn't issue overreaching orders just to give Democrats an advantage in 2026 when they proper thing to do is let the legislature follow regular order to comply.

-PJ

It’s a political issue. The state legislature in Utah can simply ignore the judge and nothing will happen.

Even if the judge rules that the current map is in violation, the judge cannot impose a 30 day limit to redraw the map.
This order strikes me as an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. The judge can order the legislature to draw a new map, but it cannot tell the legislature how to conduct its business.

The People of Utah can and did tell the legislature how to conduct its business related to redistricting with passage of Proposition 4. Why can't the judge impose a 30-day limit for the legislature to come into conformance with the law enacted by the sovereign power of the People?

Judge Gibson re Proposition 4 and redistricting (Utah, 25 aug 2025)

Judge Gibson's Order of 25 August 2025

Re: Proposition 4 passed by the People of Utah to constrain how the Utah legislature performs redistricting.

27
B. Proposition 4 does not unconstitutionally interfere with the Legislature’s core legislative redistricting power, its functions or discretion. The Legislative Defendants argue that the mandatory provisions in Proposition 4 unconstitutionally encroach on the Legislature’s core legislative power, function and its ability to exercise discretion in redistricting and, in particular, to determine “whether and how to redistrict across political subdivisions.” (Leg. Defs.’ Opp’n / Cross MSJ, p. 34.) They specifically challenge the mandatory provisions as unconstitutional interference, specifically those provisions requiring the Legislature to, among other things: (1) give first priority to minimizing the division of counties, see Utah Code Ann. §20A-19-103(2)(b); (2) require that substantive redistricting standards be applied in a particular order of priority, see Utah Code Ann. §20A-19-103(2); (3) prohibit “purposefully or unduly favor[ing] or disfavor[ing] incumbents, candidates, or political parties, see Utah Code Ann. §20A-19-103(3), which it asserts it can elect to do; (4) require application of “’judicial standards and the best available data and scientific and statistical methods . . . to assess whether a proposed redistricting plan abides by and conforms’ to
28
Proposition 4’s ‘redistricting standards,’” see Utah Code Ann. §20A-19-103(4); and (5) provide an avenue to enforce the mandatory provisions through a private cause of action, see Utah Code Ann. §20A-19-301. (See generally Leg. Defs.’ Opp’n / Cross MSJ, p. 33-39.). These challenges to specific mandatory provisions in Proposition 4 are based primarily on the argument that the Legislature has the sole and exclusive authority to redistrict, under the U.S. and Utah Constitutions, which argument this Court rejected. Redistricting, along with determining the specific standards and procedures that will apply, is a legislative function, subject to the “[s]tate’s prescriptions for lawmaking.” Arizona State Leg., 576 U.S. at 808. The people have the right – just like the Legislature – to establish redistricting standards and procedures, and to mandate compliance with substantive redistricting standards, establish priorities, prohibit partisan gerrymandering, require an assessment of compliance with Proposition 4’s redistricting standards by applying judicial standards, the best available data, and scientific and statistical methods, and provide a mechanism for enforcement of Proposition 4’s standards and procedures.

The People of Utah can and did tell the legislature how to conduct its business related to redistricting with passage of Proposition 4. Why can't the judge impose a 30-day limit for the legislature to come into conformance with the law enacted by the sovereign power of the People?

Separation of powers.

Utah state Constitution Article VI Section 12:

Each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings and choose its own officers and employees.

Each chamber of the legislature has constitutional plenary power to determine its rules of proceeding. The Judge is imposing on those rules by insisting on a 30 day limit when each chamber has the power to determine its own calendar, rules of debate, establishment of committees, etc.

The judge is effectively taking over the legislature's legislative calendar by ordering them to set aside everything else they are doing and draw a new map in 30 days. The judge does not have that power; the constitution gives the sole power to each chamber to decide its own calendar.

Answer my posted question on why the judge is insisting on 30 days and not relying on regular order? Why the rush? Is this political or judicial? I see no reason why the legislature can't still make it a priority to draw new maps, but not to stop all other work to get this done in time for candidate ballot signiture gathering for the upcoming mid-term election. It's too late in the season for such a sweeping order when regular order will comply with the judge's ruling on the map.

So they will miss 2026; the'll get it done in time for 2028. Insisting on getting done in 30 days is a political ruling, not a judicial ruling based on the constution of the state.

The judge is over-stepping his authority on telling the legislature how it must set its calendar. I'm sure there is plenty of caselaw to back up the assertion that the legislature has control of its proceedings, not judges.

-PJ