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

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stethoscope, pile of hundred dollar bills and a calculator

A deep dive into America’s healthcare cost crisis, comparing reform to a modern “moonshot.” Explores payment models, rising costs, and lessons from John F. Kennedy’s space race vision to drive systemic change.

IronHeart/Getty Images

The Moonshot America Needs to Solve Its Healthcare Crisis

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the nation, “We choose to go to the moon.” It’s often remembered as a moment of national ambition. In reality, the United States was locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the fear of falling behind in technological dominance made the mission unavoidable.

Today’s space race is driven by a different force. Governments and private companies are investing billions to capture economic advantages, from satellite infrastructure to advanced computing to the next frontier of resource extraction.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.

The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.

Keep ReadingShow less