[T.B. Yoits]

Does she mean like all the Dem states like California where GOP voters have almost no seats despite voting due to the current gerrymandered CA districts?

This could be a good thing.

The same legal standard they're applying to Utah can be applied to blue states.

[absalom01]

State court applying state law, at the lowest level, so no precedential authority even in Utah.

[Bullish]

The same legal standard they're applying to Utah can be applied to blue states.

Yeah sure, but it won't be.

[Eagle Forgotten]

“The same legal standard they’re applying to Utah can be applied to blue states.”

No, it can’t. The linked article explains the judge’s ruling that “the legislature’s map violated a 2018 voter-approved redistricting reform measure banning partisan gerrymandering.” So it’s particular to Utah. SCOTUS has held, in allowing a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina, that partisan gerrymandering doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution.

As for California, the proposed Democratic gerrymander involved taking redistricting decisions away from a commission. That change required an amendment to the California constitution, which passed — but again, that’s applicable to only one state.

Texas had no statutory or constitutional restriction on partisan gerrymandering, so the GOP put through a redistricting that’s expected to shift five seats from Democratic to Republican. The Republicans could get away with that in Texas, but, again, that doesn’t mean that they (or the Dems) can get away with it anywhere else.