Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less