UPDATE: More than 100 protesters rallied outside the Utah Capitol last night, demanding lawmakers listen to voters on redistricting reform. This urgent demonstration coincided with a special session of the Legislature on December 9, 2025, where lawmakers condemned the courts’ role in redistricting and pushed for a new congressional map ahead of the 2026 elections.
As lawmakers convened, activists sang, “Hear our voice; hear our voice; hear us as we say: Don’t ignore the voters ’cause we’re fighting back today.” Holding signs that read “Gerrymandering is naughty,” they echoed calls for fair electoral maps, highlighting the growing tension between elected officials and constituents.
In a contentious move, the Republican-controlled Legislature passed multiple bills aimed at delaying congressional candidate filing deadlines and altering court rules to expedite their appeal to the Utah Supreme Court regarding the court-mandated congressional map. The map, which has drawn criticism for creating a single Democratic-leaning district amid three heavily Republican districts, has ignited fierce debate over electoral fairness in Utah.
House Majority Leader Casey Snider led the charge, claiming the judiciary’s handling of the case has eroded public trust. “I cannot look my constituents in the eye and tell them they can trust this judiciary any longer,” Snider stated on the House floor, strongly condemning the court’s actions in a resolution that lacks binding authority but sends a clear message.
The Legislature’s resolution denounces the court-ordered map, asserting it does not reflect the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. It urges the judicial branch to adhere to the Utah Constitution, amplifying the ongoing conflict between lawmakers and the judiciary.
The controversy traces back to a long-standing legal battle initiated by advocacy groups, including the League of Women Voters of Utah and Better Boundaries. These groups challenged the Legislature’s repeal of Proposition 4, a 2018 ballot initiative that sought to establish an independent redistricting process. The Utah Supreme Court’s ruling last year underscored the limits of legislative authority concerning voter-approved reforms, a decision that has further inflamed partisan tensions.
Judge Dianna Gibson, who ordered the new map, has defended her decision, stating that the judiciary has a fundamental obligation to ensure lawful electoral maps. “When the political branches fail to enact lawful electoral maps, the judiciary’s duty to provide an effective remedy is not discretionary,” she wrote.
As lawmakers push their agenda, opponents argue that the fight is not just about map-making but about the principles of democracy and representation. Activists, including Elizabeth Rasmussen, executive director of Better Boundaries, criticized the Legislature’s refusal to accept the court’s ruling. “They don’t want to follow what the Constitution says. They don’t want to follow what the courts say,” Rasmussen said.
The tension reached a boiling point during the special session, with the Legislature passing bills designed to streamline their appeal process. These include a delay in candidate filing for congressional elections and a resolution asserting the Utah Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over election-related cases.
Democrats in the Legislature expressed alarm over the escalating hostility towards the courts. “The court gave us an ample chance to follow the law,” said Rep. Doug Owens, D-Millcreek, emphasizing that the judges’ decisions aimed to uphold the law rather than undermine it.
As the public outcry continues, the question remains: will Utah lawmakers heed the call for fair mapping, or will they persist in their battle against judicial oversight? The outcome will significantly impact the upcoming elections and the state’s political landscape.
What’s Next: Watch for developments in the Utah Supreme Court as the Legislature prepares to appeal Judge Gibson’s ruling. Advocacy groups are poised to respond, amplifying their calls for a transparent and fair electoral process as the 2026 elections approach.
