The New Utah Map Poses a Challenge for Ben McAdams

Rep. Ben McAdams (D-UT)

In an era of gerrymandering races to the bottom, it is heartening to see something like what we saw in Utah this past week.  After years of lawsuit and ballot initiative campaigning, the people of the Beehive State officially have fair maps for Congress.  While Republicans overwhelmingly have won every statewide race in Utah in the 21st Century, the voters of Salt Lake County (and there are 1.2 million citizens there) have increasingly swung blue in the past few election cycles, with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris all winning the county by double digits.  1.2 million is a lot bigger than the roughly 760k needed to make a congressional seat, and so under a fair map, given that Salt Lake County is quite compact, it would get a blue district, and one of Utah's four districts would lean to the left.  The people of the state agreed, choosing to have an independent commission draw their district lines, but the state legislature ignored the commission's recommendations (which gave the state a blue seat), and gerrymandered Salt Lake County to get rid of this district.  This week, Judge Dianna Gibson decided that the amended map by Utah Republicans was not constitutional, and declared one of the commission's maps, one that has a congressional district that Harris won by 24-points, to be the law, and that will be what is on the ballot in 2026.  Given that the bluest seat currently held by a federal Republican that Harris won is Susan Collins in Maine, and that state was only +7 points for Harris...Utah is guaranteed to send a Democrat to the House under these maps.

It has been fascinating to watch what has happened in the wake of this.  For starters, Republicans seem to have lost their minds, claiming that this is judicial overreach (it's not-Gibson was just backing the voter initiative...the overreach was from the Utah state legislature), and to claim that the district is "unfair" because it doesn't have a mix of urban, suburban, and rural voters.  This is one of those lines-of-attack that's so silly you kind of can't believe it came out of someone's brain, but to clarify-there are no rules that congressional districts must have a mix of different community types.  In fact, it's generally acceptable to have like communities together.  If it was true, I can pretty much guarantee that there wouldn't be a single Republican in the Illinois, California, & Oregon congressional delegations, and even a state like Washington would be at serious risk of losing a few more GOP seats.  Suffice it to say, Salt Lake County got the congressional seat that it deserved.

It was also interesting to see the gambit that Republicans were willing to play with their initial map.  They had actually drawn a map that might've passed muster, even if it wasn't specifically giving Salt Lake County a blue map, by drawing two districts that Donald Trump only won by single-digits, which in 2026 would've been at risk, but in 2028 or 2030 would've been much more winnable and they could've once again gone 4/4.  My thought is that the Democrats got the better deal here.  Even if they would've won two seats in 2026, that wouldn't necessarily have helped their cause too much because it's likely they'll earn a large majority that year regardless due to Trump's sixth-year itch.  But now they have a seat that basically is banked for the rest of the decade-as long as this map stays in place, even in a red wave year you can't flip a seat this blue, and so the Democrat who runs will be fine.

But it does make the calculus much different than if it was a narrow seat.  Utah hasn't really had (in my lifetime, at least) a seat this blue-while Democrats have won House seats in the 21st Century, they've won moderate districts, and (as you might imagine) those sparing wins brought about moderate Democrats, one of which was Ben McAdams, who was the last Democrat to win a House seat from Utah, losing it in 2020 as Donald Trump dominated his district.  McAdams is only 50, and has announced his intention to win back a seat in Congress...but whereas his moderate profile was once an asset, it's likely to be used against him in a seat this blue.  McAdams has a mixed track record on abortion, for example (he has called himself "pro-life") and to survive in a pink district, he was publicly critical of the first impeachment of Donald Trump (though he ultimately voted to impeach Trump on both counts).  

I would imagine that other Democrats will use this against him.  So far State Sen. Kathleen Riebe (who ran in a special election for Congress in 2023) has announced a run for the seat, and went straight after McAdams, saying of him "I know that something that's been brought up to me, frequently, is his support of independents.  And Democrats want a Democrat.  So I feel like that's going to be the big difference between him and I."  Riebe will hardly be alone in this.  I would imagine State Sen. Nate Blouin, a progressive (with a vocal Twitter following), will also run, and I would think that Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson, who ran for the Senate in 2018, has to be looking at this as an opportunity to cap off an impressive career after recently turning 60.  Utah has essentially not elected a true progressive since...ever?  And while McAdams' name recognition (and the potential for liberals to split the vote if too many of them run) might help him in the race enough to win, it would be extremely unusual for a district this blue to elect someone of his moderate profile.  It's possible McAdams was looking at this map, and (despite conventional wisdom) wishing he was running under tougher lines.