Legislature ask judge to let them appeal to Supreme Court

Judge Dianna Gibson did not rule on the request during Friday’s hearing and said she wanted to take more time for review.

Attorneys for the Utah Legislature asked a judge Friday to push pause on her ruling ordering the Legislature to redraw boundaries for the state’s four congressional seats so lawmakers can appeal the decision to the Utah Supreme Court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tyler Green, representing the Legislature, told Judge Dianna Gibson that his clients believe her ruling issued Monday is wrong and should be stayed pending an appeal — recognizing that asking a judge who days earlier had ruled against them for such a request is uncomfortable, but part of the process before they can appeal to the Supreme Court.

Gibson did not rule on the request during Friday morning’s hearing, saying she wanted to take more time to review the motion.

On Monday, Gibson — based on a decision last year by the Utah Supreme Court — ruled that the Legislature violated voters’ constitutional right to make laws when they repealed Proposition 4, the citizen-passed Better Boundaries Initiative.

That ballot measure created an independent redistricting commission and banned partisan gerrymandering, but the Legislature ignored the commission’s recommendations and split the Democratic vote in Salt Lake County, creating four safe Republican seats.

Because Republican lawmakers didn’t follow the standards set forth in Proposition 4, Gibson prohibited the Legislature’s maps from being used in the 2026 election and gave lawmakers until Sept. 24 to draw new congressional boundaries — although Gibson indicated Friday that deadline is flexible.

“We’re kind of in uncharted territory. … There’s really not a roadmap for what we do next,” Gibson said Friday. “This court is not drawing a map. It is the Legislature’s responsibility to make sure there’s a lawful congressional plan in place for the 2026 election. This court recognizes the separation of powers. I understand it’s not the court’s job. It’s the Legislature’s job.”

The new map — which the court, under Gibson’s ruling, must approve — has to be in place by Nov. 1, according to the lieutenant governor’s office, so counties can prepare for the 2026 election and candidates can file to run for office Jan. 1.

Given the tight timeline, Mark Gaber, the attorney for the plaintiffs challenging Utah’s congressional maps, argued against any delays that might make it impossible to get new congressional maps in place in time for the 2026 election.

“​​It would be tremendously unjust to allow an unconstitutional and unlawful map … to govern another election cycle when the people passed this in 2018,” Gaber said. “This has to be the point at which it stops.”

On Thursday, Republican legislative leaders said they would comply with the ruling and begin the process of drawing new maps, but also made clear they opposed Gibson’s decision, saying it “unconstitutionally” tied their hands and it would be impossible to gather meaningful public input with such a tight deadline.

Other Republicans, from President Donald Trump on down, have blasted the judge’s ruling, calling it judicial activism and politically motivated.

Gibson was appointed by Republican Gov. Gary Herbert and confirmed unanimously by the GOP-controlled Senate.

The ruling came at a politically charged juncture, as Trump has pushed Texas lawmakers to redraw their U.S. House boundaries to create safe Republican seats in an effort to help preserve the GOP’s House majority. California legislators have retaliated with a gerrymandering effort of their own in a bid to offset the potential Texas gains. Other states are also exploring options.

In its motion for the stay, Green argues, as the legislative defendants did previously, that the Utah Constitution gives the Legislature the sole power to redistrict, and it is improper for the court to insert itself and the public so directly into that process.

“The timing of this Court’s [ruling] parachutes Utah into a national redistricting spotlight when intensely partisan redistricting fights are being waged across the Country,” he said.

Leaving the existing maps in place until appeals of Gibson’s ruling run their course “will avoid these problems,” Green wrote. “It will let the 2026 election, the remedial proceedings, and the appeals take place in an orderly fashion without undermining the Legislature’s prerogatives.”

Much of Friday’s hearing dealt with how to get the new boundaries in place by Nov. 1 — although Assistant Attorney General Lance Sorenson, representing the lieutenant governor’s office, said he will check with county clerks if there is some wiggle room in that deadline and provide an answer to the court by Wednesday.

Gaber pressed for the Legislature to adopt a new map by Sept. 24, while Green suggested, because of the logistics involved, Oct. 3 might be more practical. Either way, Gibson seemed to plan to hold a hearing on Oct. 23 or 24 to hear arguments on whether the Legislature’s new map meets the Proposition 4 criteria or if she would need to choose from another map submitted by the plaintiffs or the public.

“I’m looking at this as a voter,” said Malcolm Reid, a Millcreek voter and plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging lawmakers’ split of Salt Lake County. “I just want to make sure we have fair maps in place for the 2026 election, that there’s no undue delays or tactics placed in front of us, so that we can vote in a fair election.”

This story is breaking and may be updated.