Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lawsuit claims unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering in Utah

Utah congressional map

Plaintiffs argue that congressional map approved by the Utah Legislature unconstitutionally "cracks" the Salt Like City area into four districts.

The latest redistricting lawsuit was filed Thursday morning in Utah, where a collection of voting rights advocates and individual voters are fighting what they say is an extreme example of partisan gerrymandering.

The plaintiffs in the case argue the Utah Legislature violated the state Constitution when it approved a congressional map that ignored the will of voters and created districts that eliminated the ability for a minority party to compete.

Led by the League of Women Voters of Utah, the Campaign Legal Center and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, the lawsuit asks the court to prevent the map from being used in 2024 and to reinstate a voter-approved independent redistricting commission.


In 2018, Utah voters approved a ballot measure, known as Proposition 4 or the Better Boundaries initiative, which created an independent redistricting commission. However, in 2020 the Legislature passed a new law that removed the commission’s authority, leaving it as an advisory board and granting final approval of district maps back to lawmakers.

Utah is a solidly Republican state with an all-GOP congressional delegation. However, for most of the past 20 years, the Salt Lake City area was represented by Democrats. The map proposed by the redistricting commission would have included one Democratic-leaning seat, but the lines drawn and approved by the Legislature “cracks” the Salt Lake City area, splitting voters into four heavily GOP districts.

“Unfair maps and gerrymandering dilute the voices of communities and consequently hurt voters of all parties,” said Catherine Weller, president of LWV of Utah.

While the portion of the lawsuit focused on the cracking of Salt Lake City would benefit Democrats in the state, one count has the backing of both Republican and Democratic voters who want to protect the rights of Utahns, according to organizers.

Article I, Section 2 of the Utah Constitution reads: “All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.”

The lawsuit argues the Legislature violated that section when it repealed Proposition 4, engaging in “post-hoc nullification” of voters' rights to reform the government through ballot initiatives.

“Independent redistricting commissions, like the one created through Proposition 4, are a pro-voter reform that helps ensure voters are the ones who decide how the electoral districts are drawn,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center.

Because Utah’s filing window for candidates closed March 4 and the primary will be held June 28, the plaintiffs are not trying to change the map for the 2022 election, but rather create new maps for 2024 and beyond.

Partisan gerrymandering is purely a state issue, ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that it had no jurisdiction in such matters (although federal courts are still a venue for allegations of racial gerrymandering).

Utah is now the 15th state where a lawsuit has been filed over partisan gerrymandering, according to the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice. Courts have ordered new maps to be drawn in Alaska, North Carolina and Ohio.


Read More

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption
Greggory DiSalvo/Getty

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption

A new Brennan Center survey finds that large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents share deep-seated concerns about government corruption, which most voters define broadly and blame for many of the country’s biggest problems going unaddressed. The survey, fielded to 2,000 registered voters across the country between April 28 and May 6, also finds widespread support for key anticorruption reforms, such as new limits on money in elections and stronger protections against self-dealing by high-ranking government officials.

The key findings include:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less
stethoscope and us dollar bills on blue-colored background.

Millions of Americans face rising healthcare costs and coverage gaps. Learn how strengthening the Affordable Care Act can improve affordability and access.

Getty Images, aaaaimages

When Health Care Becomes a Choice, Something Is Broken

Recently, a nurse told me she had to choose between paying for her husband’s surgery and putting a new roof on their home. “We’re praying for no rain,” she said. In that moment, the distance between political promises and real life collapsed. This is what the economy feels like for millions of Americans — not a graph, not a headline, but a quiet calculation of which basic need they can afford to meet. No family in a nation as wealthy as ours should have to rely on the weather to survive.

For years, Americans were promised that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be replaced with something better, cheaper, and available to everyone. That promise never became policy. Congress never passed a comprehensive replacement. The closest attempt, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), collapsed under the weight of its own numbers. The Congressional Budget Office found that it would have left 23 million more Americans uninsured, caused 14 million to lose coverage in the first year alone, cut Medicaid by $834 billion, and raised premiums for older adults to levels many could never pay. A 64‑year‑old making $26,500 a year would have seen premiums jump from $1,700 under the ACA to more than $14,000. Protections for people with pre‑existing conditions would have weakened. That is not “better.” That is not “cheaper.” And it certainly was not “for everyone.”

Keep ReadingShow less