Editorial
A Constitution Hanging by a Thread: My Complete Response to Judge Gibson’s Redistricting Order
Judge Dianna Gibson’s ruling on Utah’s redistricting is nothing short of a constitutional crisis. By declaring Senate Bill 200 void and reviving Proposition 4, she elevated a narrow statute above Article IX’s plain text and inserted the judiciary into a role our framers never intended. This blog exposes how her order rewrites the Constitution, misuses precedent, and threatens legislative accountability.
Summary: A Constitutional Crisis in Utah
Judge Dianna Gibson’s August 25, 2025 redistricting order is nothing less than a constitutional crisis. By declaring Senate Bill 200 “void ab initio,” resurrecting Proposition 4, and ordering the Legislature to redraw maps under its standards, she elevated a narrow statute above the Utah Constitution and transformed courts into partisan referees.
This ruling:
- Rewrites the Constitution by reducing Article IX’s command that “the Legislature shall divide” districts into a mere timing note.
- Elevates a statute above the Constitution, treating Proposition 4 as untouchable while nullifying a duly enacted law.
- Misuses federal precedent, ignoring that Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was valid only because it amended Arizona’s constitution—not because of a statute.
- Turns courts into mapmakers, forcing judges to enforce vague “fairness” standards the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause deemed unmanageable.
In the analysis that follows, I draw on Utah’s constitutional history, U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and conversations from my PoliticIt podcast to show why this ruling must be overturned. The people’s right to reform government is sacred—but altering constitutional powers requires a constitutional amendment, not judicial fiat. Utah’s Constitution now hangs by a thread, and it is our duty to defend it.
https://utahnewsdispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/document-71.pdf
Introduction: A Constitutional Crisis
The Utah Constitution could not be clearer. Article IX, Section 1 states:
“No later than the annual general session next following the Legislature’s receipt of the results of an enumeration made by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall divide the state into congressional, legislative, and other districts accordingly.”
That is not a suggestion or a procedural aside—it is a mandatory command to the people’s elected representatives. This duty has rested with the Legislature since 1896, ensuring that the power of representation remains with those accountable to the voters every two or four years.
Not judges. Not commissions. Not advocacy groups.
Yet on August 25, 2025, Third District Judge Dianna Gibson declared Senate Bill 200 “void ab initio” and ordered the Legislature to redraw Utah’s congressional maps under the standards of a voter initiative, Proposition 4.
She did not merely interpret the law. She rewrote the Constitution—elevating a narrowly passed statute (approved by just 50.3% of voters) above Article IX’s plain text and inserting the judiciary into the role of partisan referee.
The Utah News Dispatch hailed this as a “watershed moment.” I call it what it is: a constitutional crisis.
Part I: Lessons Learned from Previous PoliticIt Podcasts
This ruling is the exact danger my colleagues and I discussed on my PoliticIt podcast series on Amendment D. Those conversations now read like a warning label on this case:
Rep. Brady Brammer “emphasized that constitutional text must govern. Article IX’s “shall divide” is not a suggestion but a binding duty.” — Gibson’s attempt to rebrand this as “timing” unravels the very fabric of government and licenses judicial activism.
Former Congressman Rob Bishop cautioned that once legislative power is ceded, it is rarely regained. He stressed Utah’s unique rural-urban balance, with 63% of the state under federal control. In such a state, mixing districts is not a distortion—it is a deliberate constitutional balance ensuring rural voices are not drowned by urban dominance.
Senator Mike McKell “affirmed the legitimacy of initiatives but drew a bright line: when reform seeks to reassign constitutional powers, the proper vehicle must be a constitutional amendment, not a statute. He also warned that initiatives often rely on opaque “dark money” campaigns, undermining the very transparency they claim to promote.”
Analyst Dave Owen warned that using vague fairness standards like “neutrality” or “partisan symmetry” turns judges into political actors and guarantees endless litigation. (Gibson’s order does exactly this, burdening the Legislature with subjective, unmanageable criteria).
These insights converge on one principle: initiatives may reform, but they cannot amend the Constitution by stealth. Judge Gibson’s order embodies precisely the danger we foresaw.
Part II: The Utah Supreme Court’s Better Boundaries Decision
The foundation for this order is the Utah Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in League of Women Voters v. Utah Legislature (2024 UT 21). The Court elevated Article I, Section 2—“All political power is inherent in the people … [who] have the right to alter or reform their government”—into a judicially enforceable limit: when the Legislature changes a bona fide government-reform initiative, those changes must survive strict scrutiny (i.e., must be narrowly tailored to a compelling interest).
That was already a dramatic shift. It created, functionally, two classes of statutes: (1) ordinary laws, amendable by the Legislature; and (2) “reform” laws, judicially shielded from amendment absent a compelling justification.
Crucially, however, the Supreme Court did not strike down SB 200 or revive Proposition 4. It remanded to Judge Gibson to apply strict scrutiny—i.e., to decide whether SB 200 substantially impaired Prop 4’s core reform and, if so, whether the State’s interests were compelling and narrowly tailored.
Her task was review, not revision. What followed exceeded that mandate.
Part III: Judge Gibson’s Overreach
Judge Gibson’s order contains four fatal flaws. Direct passages from the order follow, with page references.
- Rewriting the Constitution (Article IX, §1)
Judge Gibson writes:
“[T]his provision limits the Legislature’s authority. Specifically, it limits when redistricting shall occur… As supported by the legislative history, this provision is a limitation on when redistricting shall occur.” (Order, p. 24)
“Article IX’s reference to the term ‘Legislature’ does not exclude the legislative power of the people… [It] does not include any limiting terms such as ‘exclusive’ or ‘sole’…” (Order, p. 24)
By recasting Article IX as merely temporal, the order strips the clause of operative meaning. For 130 years the clause has been understood as a substantive assignment—the Legislature shall divide. The order transforms an imperative into a calendar reminder. That is not textual fidelity; it’s textual evasion.
Historically, Utah’s framers vested redistricting in the Legislature to ensure accountability and to balance regional interests. That’s why the 1988 and 2008 amendments (including the one often dubbed “Amendment D”) adjusted timing, not who draws maps. Reducing Article IX to a timing device erases this settled structure without any constitutional amendment.
Elevating a Statute Above the Constitution (Prop 4 as a “super-statute”)
The order declares:
“…an unconstitutional law… is ‘void ab initio.’” (Order, p. 68)
“Proposition 4 is the law in Utah by operation of law, not by an act of legislation by this Court.” (Order, p. 68)
On this logic, because the Legislature allegedly impaired a reform initiative (Prop 4), SB 200 is void from inception and Prop 4 “remains the law.” That flips Utah’s legal hierarchy upside down. Prop 4 is—undisputedly—a statute, not a constitutional amendment. Under Article XXIII, constitutional change requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and ratification by the people. That path was not taken. Courts cannot invent a shortcut by judicial declaration.
The Utah Supreme Court’s remand asked the district court to apply strict scrutiny to SB 200—not to resurrect Prop 4 wholesale or to declare it beyond legislative reach. Treating a voter-enacted statute as constitutionally entrenched (unless strict scrutiny is satisfied) converts initiatives into quasi-amendments and demotes the Legislature to a junior partner.
Aside: The Colorado Blueprint, ProgressNow, and Better Utah
The battle over Proposition 4 in Utah is not an isolated fight. It mirrors a nationalized strategy first perfected in Colorado and now adapted in states like ours.
The Colorado Blueprint. In the mid-2000s, a small circle of wealthy progressive donors in Colorado launched what became known as the “Colorado Blueprint.” The strategy was to build a permanent progressive infrastructure outside the formal party system—nonprofits, litigation groups, media outlets—that could steadily shape narratives and change the political landscape. Scholars and journalists credit this model with flipping Colorado from red to blue in less than a decade.^1
ProgressNow as the communications hub. At the center of the Colorado Blueprint stood ProgressNow, founded in 2003 as a rapid-response communications network.^2 It framed issues through a progressive lens and spread coordinated talking points. ProgressNow soon expanded into a multistate federation, creating affiliates in more than twenty states.
Alliance for a Better Utah as the Utah affiliate. Alliance for a Better Utah (ABU) is Utah’s official affiliate of ProgressNow.^3 ProgressNow itself lists ABU as its state partner.^4 ABU uses the same dual-entity model as other Blueprint groups: a 501(c)(4) advocacy arm and a 501(c)(3) “institute.”^5
Funding networks. ProgressNow affiliates have historically aligned with the Democracy Alliance, a national donor consortium whose mission is to “build progressive power across the states.”^6 This shows that Better Utah is part of a coordinated national infrastructure, not an isolated watchdog.
The Utah application. In Utah, ABU has amplified messaging against the Legislature’s maps and in favor of Proposition 4’s reforms, calling the Legislature’s work “rampant gerrymandering.”^7 The playbook is clear: use litigation, media amplification, and nonprofit messaging to box in legislatures and shift power to unelected commissions and courts.
Why it matters. Better Utah is not neutral. It is a state affiliate of a national network credited with flipping Colorado. Elevating Prop 4 to the status of a constitutional amendment fits the Blueprint strategy: weaken legislatures, entrench nonprofit power, and bypass representative government.
Endnotes
- Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer, The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care) (Fulcrum, 2010).
- ProgressNow, “Our History,” progressnow.org.
- Alliance for a Better Utah, “About Us,” betterutah.org/about-us.
- ProgressNow, “Our Network,” progressnow.org/states.
- IRS Form 990s, Alliance for a Better Utah (EIN 45-3662424) and Better Utah Institute (EIN 47-2236225).
- Democracy Alliance, “About,” democracyalliance.org/about.
- Alliance for a Better Utah, “Redistricting,” betterutah.org/redistricting.
Misusing Federal Precedent
The order justifies itself by invoking U.S. Supreme Court cases:
“As the U.S. Supreme Court has long held, ‘Legislature’ includes the legislative power of the people, and reforms like Proposition 4 fall within that process.” (Order, p. 18)
But the cited cases don’t do what the order says they do:
- Smiley v. Holm (1932) and Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant (1916) hold that congressional redistricting must follow a state’s ordinary lawmaking procedures (e.g., gubernatorial veto or referendum) where the state constitution so provides. They do not empower courts to displace a state constitution’s assignment of who draws maps.
- Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015) upheld a commission created by state constitutional amendment. That distinction is dispositive. Arizona’s people amended their constitution; Utah’s Prop 4 is a statute.
- Moore v. Harper (2023) rejected the “independent state legislature” theory but warned state courts not to transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review. Elevating a statute as if it were constitutional text, while demoting Article IX to “timing,” crosses that boundary.
- Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court because there are no judicially manageable standards. Rucho pointed to state constitutions as the appropriate source for justiciable limits—not to ordinary statutes enforced as if they were constitutional mandates.
In short: the order cites federal precedent as a permission slip, when those very cases underscore the need to respect state constitutional structure and to avoid judicial lawmaking in the “political thicket.”
Turning Courts into Mapmakers
The remedy section orders:
“The Legislature is directed to design and enact a remedial congressional redistricting map in conformity with Proposition 4’s mandatory redistricting standards and requirements.” (Order, p. 76)
“The Legislative Defendants shall have thirty (30) days… until September 24, 2025, to design and enact a remedial congressional map that complies with [Prop 4]… [and] are ordered to make their chosen remedial map available… no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 24, 2025 or within 24 hours of enacting the new congressional map, whichever occurs earlier.” (Order, p. 76)
This places courts in a posture of ongoing supervision and invites litigation over “neutrality,” “partisan symmetry,” and other social-science metrics that Rucho warned lack manageable judicial standards. Judges become the referees of political advantage—a role the Constitution does not assign to them.
Supporting Analysis: Grounds for Overturn
Article IX Rewritten. The order’s “timing clause” theory strips Article IX of substantive content and disregards 130 years of consistent practice. Amending the structural allocation of power requires Article XXIII’s formal process; it cannot be accomplished by judicial gloss.
Prop 4 as Super-Statute. Declaring SB 200 “void ab initio” and proclaiming “Proposition 4 is the law in Utah by operation of law” (p. 68) exceeds the Supreme Court’s remand and effectively entrenches a statute above the Constitution. Utah law has long recognized the Legislature’s authority to amend or repeal initiatives (see, e.g., Gallivan v. Walker, 2002 UT 89). The proper question on remand was strict scrutiny—not statutory resurrection.
Courts as Mapmakers. Ordering maps to conform to Prop 4’s “mandatory” standards thrusts courts into the political thicket. Rucho cautions that partisan-fairness adjudication lacks manageable standards. If Utahns want enforceable anti-gerrymandering rules that limit legislative discretion, those rules belong in the Utah Constitution, not in a statute elevated by judicial decree.
Precedents Misapplied.
- Smiley and Hildebrant: lawmaking procedures apply, but legislative primacy remains; no vote for judicial transfer of power.
- AIRC: commission valid because voters amended the constitution; statutory analogy fails.
- Moore: courts enforce constitutions, not convert statutes into constitutional surrogates.
- Rucho: warns against judicially policing partisan symmetry absent constitutional standards.
- Consistency with Founding Purposes. Utah’s framers assigned redistricting to the Legislature to balance regional interests and ensure accountability. Later adjustments (1988, 2008) fine-tuned when redistricting occurs, not who does it. That settlement deserves constitutional respect.
Part IV: Why This Matters (Then and Now)
The framers worried about power concentration. In 1895, that concern centered on the potential dominance of a rapidly growing Salt Lake City over rural counties. Today, the political alignments are different, but the principle is the same: balance requires a deliberative, accountable body entrusted to weigh tradeoffs and represent the whole state. That is what a Legislature does.
When courts elevate statutes into quasi-constitutional law and claim authority to referee “fairness,” accountability erodes. Voters can fire legislators. They cannot vote out a panel of judges after a remedial plan. That is why redistricting assignment belongs where Article IX placed it.
Historical Context: Why the Constitution Entrusted Redistricting to the Legislature
When Utah entered the Union in 1896, the framers of our Constitution deliberately vested redistricting authority in the Legislature. They understood that if line-drawing were left to unelected bodies or single commissions, political power would inevitably concentrate along the Wasatch Front, where most of the population lived, leaving rural Utah without a voice. From the coal towns of Carbon County to the ranches of San Juan, Sevier, and Box Elder, Utahns outside Salt Lake feared being sidelined.
The first congressional election in 1896 was conducted at-large because Utah had only one seat. After the 1910 Census, Utah gained a second seat, and in 1912 the Legislature enacted its first congressional districts. One district encompassed Salt Lake County and the urbanizing Wasatch Front; the other ensured representation for the vast rural counties stretching across central and southern Utah. That principle — urban growth balanced with rural representation — was repeated after each subsequent census in 1920, 1930, 1940, and beyond.
Some have argued that the Legislature’s more recent division of Salt Lake City into four districts was purely partisan. But that is not the case. There was a legitimate concern that Utah’s congressional delegation should reflect both urban and rural interests in a balanced fashion. Ensuring that rural communities were not politically marginalized has always been a driving purpose of legislative redistricting in our state.
This is why Article IX of the Utah Constitution says plainly, “The Legislature shall divide the state…” A legislative body elected from every corner of the state was the only mechanism capable of protecting both urban and rural communities. That safeguard has been honored for nearly 130 years, and it should not now be erased by judicial invention.
Part V: Public Response and Further Analysis from Recent Discussions
The ruling has sparked vigorous debate, as seen in my recent X thread (posted August 26, 2025), where I outlined the constitutional crisis and called for an appeal. The thread emphasizes that redistricting is a fundamental legislative duty, and judicial overreach here represents “government by decree, not government by consent.” Public responses highlight key tensions: Some, like @Stephen72616432, argue the ruling upholds Article I, Section 2’s reform rights, citing Prop 4 as the people’s will and criticizing legislative overreach. In reply, I clarified that while power is inherent in the people, reassigning constitutional duties requires an amendment, not a statute—echoing Arizona’s model.
Others, like @BjaminWood, pointed to “as provided by law” in Article IX as implying co-equal voter power. My response: This phrase refers to the legislative process, not overriding constitutional text; initiatives are amendable statutes, not untouchable mandates.
Critics like @SharonGF_NBCT questioned legislative integrity for ignoring Prop 4, while @GrayM0untain and @4ereForMemes blamed GOP appointments of “leftist judges” by Govs. Herbert and Cox, suggesting party accountability issues and referencing Phil Lyman’s opposition. Supporters, such as @NormieUtah, noted Prop 4’s slim 50.3% margin (8,000 votes out of 1 million) versus ongoing legislative elections. @hicksticks2001 queried where the judge drew maps, underscoring the order’s overreach in commanding compliance without direct drawing.
The thread also links to my Amendment D podcasts, with an outline of legal issues:
- Brammer: Judicial activism undermines separation of powers via rulings like this.
- Bishop: Court interference challenges legislative vesting, validating flawed processes.
- McKell: Initiatives lack transparency, influenced by “dark money.”
- Owen: Ruling approves partisan maps under non-partisan guise, shifting from grassroots.
This discourse reinforces the blog’s arguments: The ruling rewards violations by nullifying reforms, elevates externally funded initiatives, and ignores legislative accountability. It bolsters the call for appeal, as public feedback shows widespread concern over judicial fiat eroding democratic balance.
Adding to this conversation, U.S. Senator Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) posted a detailed thread on August 26, 2025, framing the ruling as a “judicial takeover of the political process—one designed by leftists to advance the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party.” Lee argues that the courts are invalidating the legislature’s amendments to Prop 4 despite Article IX requiring districts to be drawn by the legislature, not an outside commission. He warns: “This decision will make the process of drawing legislative districts in Utah less accountable to voters, not more. It’ll also result in maps that are far more generous to Democrats, and that’s the whole point.” Echoing my call for action, Lee urges contacting legislators to “act quickly and aggressively to fix this problem, even by means of a constitutional amendment if necessary.” His critique aligns with national trends post-Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), where state courts increasingly intervene in red states, and emphasizes how “independent commissions” often give the left an “unfair, unearned advantage.” This high-profile support underscores the urgency: If unchecked, this ruling could shift Utah’s all-Republican delegation amid urban Democratic growth, while ignoring federal land issues (63% of Utah is federally owned) that demand balanced representation.
Anticipating and Answering Counterarguments
“But Article I, Section 2 protects the people’s right to reform.” Yes. The people can reform through initiatives. But when reform reassigns constitutional powers, the proper vehicle is a constitutional amendment under Article XXIII. That’s what Arizona did for its commission. Utah did not. As I told @Stephen72616432, this honors the people’s power without rewriting Article IX.
“SCOTUS says ‘Legislature’ includes the lawmaking process.” True—for congressional maps under the Elections Clause, “Legislature” includes state-defined procedures like vetoes and referenda. But nothing in those cases authorizes a court to demote a state constitutional assignment (Article IX) to a timing note or to treat a statute as a constitutional amendment. To @BjaminWood: “As provided by law” means through legislative processes, not voter statutes overriding the Constitution.
“Strict scrutiny means SB 200 fails.” Strict scrutiny is a test, not a conclusion. The Utah Supreme Court sent the case back for that inquiry; it did not authorize declaring SB 200 void ab initio or reinstating Prop 4 wholesale. Even under strict scrutiny, the State’s interests in preserving Article IX’s assignment, avoiding judicial entanglement, and maintaining manageability are compelling—and any tailoring analysis must respect that constitutional baseline.
Conclusion: A Constitution Hanging by a Thread
I will state it plainly: Utah will not be governed by judicial fiat.
The people absolutely have the right to alter or reform their government. But when that reform reassigns constitutional powers, it must be done honestly—by constitutional amendment under Article XXIII—not by judicial elevation of a statute.
This case must be appealed, and if necessary carried to the U.S. Supreme Court. Utah cannot allow statutes to be elevated above its Constitution or courts to become permanent mapmakers. Our framers entrusted redistricting to the Legislature for a reason: accountability to the people.
That is the principle I intend to defend, without hesitation.
