Utah Supreme Court hears arguments over partisan gerrymandering case
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Maura Losch/Axios
The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday related to a lawsuit challenging a congressional map drawn by the GOP-controlled state Legislature that voting-rights advocates say dilutes the voting power of Democrats.
State of play: The justices will determine whether to send the case to a state court for review or if it's outside the court's purview.
- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering cases were "beyond the reach of the federal courts."
Catch up quick: Utahns in 2018 narrowly approved Proposition 4, a ballot initiative created to form a seven-member independent redistricting commission charged with drawing new boundaries once per decade to avoid possible gerrymandering.
- Yes, but: The Utah Legislature approved its own maps in 2021 over those drafted by the commission.
- A Legislature-approved map split blue-bent Salt Lake County into four congressional districts.
Context: The League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and Utah residents filed a lawsuit last year challenging the House map and accusing state lawmakers of undermining Democratic votes in the state's most populous county.
- In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argued state lawmakers "acted to the detriment of all Utahns, but especially non-Republican voters living in urban areas along the Wasatch Front."
The big picture: Utah is just one of a handful of states where litigation over congressional maps remains ongoing.
What they're saying: "It's ultimately the Legislature's choice to decide how Utah's population is divided," Taylor Meehan, an attorney representing the state Legislature, told justices Tuesday.
- Responding to a question about how voters can alter or reform their government, Meehan said they could advocate for a constitutional amendment or lobby their lawmakers during the legislative process.
- "That seems like an empty promise. ... Under the system that you're suggesting, the Legislature is always going to have the final say," Chief Justice Matthew Durrant argued.
- "It's very clear that the people of Utah wanted zero partisanship to be in effect in the drawing of the lines," Mark Gaber, a Campaign Legal Center lawyer representing the plaintiffs later told the justices.
What's next: It's unclear when the justices will release their decision.
The bottom line: The case "could have national implications — not merely for the political balance in the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives but also for the emerging body of legal precedents that influence how courts rule in other states," the New York Times reports.