Examining the Utah Redraw

Judge Dianna Gibson

Yesterday, a long-anticipated ruling from Judge Dianna Gibson was issued in Utah, declaring the congressional maps in Utah to be unconstitutional.  In a time where there are nearly a dozen states either actively pursuing or tentatively floating the idea of doing a mid-decade redraw of their maps, you might be wondering why I'm giving time specifically to this race, but while the others are partisan (and yes, I'll own it's a "both sides are doing it" even if it was very much one side that started it type of arms race), Utah's redraw, should it happen, would be a cause for celebration, as it would officially be a situation where we are stopping gerrymandering from happening, even if it's 100% clear which party would benefit from the redraw.

Taking a step back, Gibson's decision is based on a judicial suit that has been in the courts for years, enough so that it was considered for the 2024 cycle before Democrats ultimately gave up on trying to get a seat in the state that year.  The ruling is based on a constitutional amendment that was passed by the state in 2018 that required independent redistricting for congressional races, but the Utah state legislature (as deeply Republican as you would expect for a red state) basically just ignored this amendment, and drew a map that would ensure that all four of the state's congressional representatives were Republican.  With Gibson's ruling, though, these maps are invalid, and Gibson is not giving them a particularly large amount of time to try and counter her ruling (which most expect will be upheld by the Utah Supreme Court if the GOP tries to appeal).  Republicans can try to run the clock out, but that comes with an intense bit of risk.

The big issue with Utah's congressional maps right now surrounds Salt Lake County.  The historically red county has, in the Trump era, become reliably blue, voting for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris in their respective presidential races even as Donald Trump decidedly won the remainder of the state.  With over 1.1 million people, Salt Lake County has more than enough citizens to have its own congressional district, but given that seat would lean to the Democrats (if not be strongly blue, depending on how you draw it), the state's Republicans split the maps up so that all four districts have at least a portion of Salt Lake City or County included in their constituency.  I've mentioned this before, but this makes Utah (give or take Tennessee) arguably the most egregious gerrymander currently in the country (Texas will probably outdo it), as it essentially destroys the state's population (and economic) center's ability to have a voice in Congress.

Republicans could try to run out the clock here, but that would risk Gibson ordering an independent commission to redraw the map, which honestly is a ticking clock for Republicans.  Utah is a fast-growing state, and you could easily draw a map that would flip two seats to the Democrats if you wanted to, splitting the Salt Lake City metro area in half, and given the midterms in 2026 could be favorable for the left, this feels risky.  The smart move, in my opinion, would be to admit defeat, cut your losses, and draw a blue sink with safe red seats surrounding it.  Utah is expected to gain a seat in 2032 anyway given population trends, and there's no way you can practically make a 5R-0D seat in Utah without putting 2-3 of those seats at risk.  Why not just start the precedence of having one Democrat that always wins and not risk having a second seat that goes blue in tough years for the GOP?  This is the approach that Kentucky & Kansas Republicans have struck in their states.

This is ultimately what I think will happen, after much hemming-and-hawing, and claiming this is "unfair" even though it's correcting a heinous gerrymander (Mike Lee, the Jake Paul of the US Senate, has already started whining).  But this will do two things.  First, it'll mean that (unless someone retires) we'll get a member vs. member primary, probably between Reps. Burgess Owens & Celeste Maloy.  Owens is thirty years Maloy's senior (and could just retire), but he might not given Maloy has struggled to solidify her right flank (she barely won her 2024 primary, only getting a victory by 176 votes), which has never been an issue for Owens.  If they both run, I'd anticipate Maloy would lose, which is why I'd assume she'll pressure him behind-the-scenes to retire given he's 74.  Either way-I would assume one of them ends up being on the chopping block.

For the Democrats, though, this is a huge opportunity.  While there have been Democrats since the Clinton administration who represented Utah in Congress (specifically Jim Matheson & Ben McAdams), they have always done so 1) as moderates and 2) as incumbents that struggled to keep their seats.  McAdams lost reelection in 2020, and Matheson certainly would've lost his seat had he run again in 2014.  This seat, though, will likely allow for a more progressive Democrat (not in the vein of Jasmine Crockett, but certainly more in the vein of a Maria Cantwell than a Joe Manchin) if Democrats so choose.  I would imagine a host of names (Jenny Wilson, Angela Romero, Erin Mendenhall, Luz Escamilla, Jackie Biskupski, even a return bid from McAdams) to be names looking at the contest, the first time (maybe ever) that there's a chance for a Democrat to consistently, reliably, be part of the national conversation from Utah since the 1970's.