A Constitutional Crisis in Utah: How a Judge Rewrote the Law and Opened the Door for Judicial Tyranny

Statement of Authorship

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of Utah and the Constitution of the United States. This white paper represents my own work and analysis, delivered in fulfillment of that duty. It does not merely address maps or partisanship; it confronts a deeper, more existential problem: the judicial elevation of a statute to a de facto constitutional amendment, a move that undermines Utah’s constitutional order and threatens the very balance of powers that defines a free government.

---

I. The Foundational Conflict: Law vs. Constitution

In 2018, Utah voters were presented with a ballot initiative to enact a law. The ballot question was unambiguous:

“Shall a law be enacted to: create a seven-member commission to recommend redistricting plans… require the Legislature to enact or reject a commission-recommended plan… and authorize lawsuits…?”

The two most critical words in this text are “recommend” and “law.”

1. The commission’s role was explicitly advisory, not binding.
2. The measure was, by its own text, a statute—not an amendment to the state constitution.

This distinction is not semantic; it is the bedrock of our constitutional order. The Utah Constitution, Article IX, Section 1, is unequivocal: “The Legislature shall divide the state into congressional, legislative, and other districts as provided by law.” Proposition 4 never touched that duty. It was a statute subject to legislative amendment, just like any other law passed by an elected legislative body.

II. The Voter Guide’s Explicit Warnings and The Legislature’s Fixes

The 2018 Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP), a document distributed to every voter, contained explicit warnings that Proposition 4 might:

• Conflict with Article IX, Section 1 by interfering with the Legislature’s exclusive duty to draw maps.
• Violate the separation of powers by involving judges in legislative functions.

Voters were explicitly told: Prop 4 was a law with potential constitutional conflicts. Yet, courts later chose to ignore these warnings and elevate the statute above its intended station.

In 2020, the Legislature acted as a responsible steward of the law by passing SB200. This was not a repeal; it was a legitimate amendment designed to fix the law’s contradictions and ensure its workability. It preserved the advisory commission while making crucial, data-driven changes:

• Removing the vague “public explanation” mandate. The original law’s requirement was unspecific and ripe for abuse, allowing courts to use it as a weapon to invite endless litigation.
• Restoring the use of partisan/demographic data. Without this, Prop 4’s “no bias” rule was unenforceable, as it’s impossible to measure partisan fairness without political data.
• Limiting lawsuits. This provision was a direct response to the threat of external groups weaponizing the judiciary to subvert the legislative process.

III. The Playbook: Dark Money and the Imported Colorado Blueprint

Proposition 4 was marketed as a grassroots movement. The financial reports prove otherwise. Over 70% of the funding came from just four donors, all with national political affiliations, demonstrating a level of outside interest far beyond what is normally seen in Utah politics. This is a classic example of “dark money” disguised as transparency.

This is a key component of the Colorado Blueprint, a strategy pioneered by wealthy progressive donors to use coordinated big-donor funding, litigation, ballot measures, and media pressure to flip traditionally red states. The results of this blueprint in Colorado are a cautionary tale. The state’s Democratic trifecta passed sweeping progressive policies, and while economic data is complex, critics point to the fact that since 2010, the median rent has surged by over 70%, with a third of households now “severely cost-burdened.” The Blueprint shifts power from elected, accountable officials to a network of unelected, unaccountable organizations.

In Utah, this blueprint is unmistakable. Proposition 4 was the entry point; the lawsuit (League of Women Voters v. Utah Legislature) advanced it; and judicial fiat delivered the payoff. This is not a local reform movement; it is a national playbook imported to circumvent Utah’s constitutional order.

IV. Cracking vs. Packing: Why Salt Lake County Is Central

Prop 4’s internal contradictions collide most clearly in Salt Lake County.

• Keeping the county whole leads to packing, where Democrats are guaranteed one congressional seat, thereby diminishing their influence elsewhere.
• Splitting the county leads to cracking, which can balance urban and rural voices and promote more competitive districts.

Both outcomes can be labeled as partisan, which is why a law banning the use of partisan data was unworkable. SB200 fixed this by allowing the Legislature to use objective data to create fair maps that pass constitutional muster.

V. Judicial Fiat: The Creation of a “Super-Law”

In a breathtaking series of events, Utah courts have sought to legislate from the bench.

• 2024: The Utah Supreme Court invented a new legal category, the “government reform initiatives” doctrine, holding that such laws are an expression of popular sovereignty immune from legislative amendment. This created an untouchable “super-law.”
• 2025: Judge Gibson applied this unprecedented doctrine on August 25, 2025. In her ruling, she stated that the Legislature “unconstitutionally repealed Proposition 4” and declared the 2021 maps “unlawful.” But her most egregious act was to issue an order that transcends her authority: she ordered the Legislature to redraw the maps within 30 days.

This is not judicial review; it is judicial lawmaking. The court has no power to dictate the legislative calendar. This action directly violates Article VII, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, which reserves the power to convene a special session to the Governor or to two-thirds of the Legislature itself. Courts can strike down a law, but they cannot compel a coequal branch of government to act within a specific timeframe.

VI. Federal Implications: A Question for the Nation

This is bigger than Utah. It strikes at the heart of our federal republic.

• Elections Clause (Art. I, §4): This clause assigns the power to regulate federal elections, including redistricting, to state legislatures. By overriding a legitimate legislative amendment, the court’s action directly subverts this constitutional mandate and opens the door to similar judicial intervention in every state.
• Guarantee Clause (Art. IV, §4): This clause guarantees every state a republican form of government. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 51, the separation of powers is essential to “keep the several departments in their places.” A republican government is one where laws are made by elected representatives accountable to the people, not by unelected judges who invent a new class of “super-laws” to achieve a political outcome.
• Moore v. Harper (2023): The U.S. Supreme Court, in this landmark case, warned that state courts cannot “transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review” and usurp the power of state legislatures. By inventing a new category of “super-laws,” Utah’s court just did.

This is why this fight should be headed to Washington.

VII. Conclusion: A Call to Defend the Constitution

Prop 4 was a statute—narrowly passed, donor-funded, and constitutionally flawed. The Legislature amended it. Courts rewrote it into a constitutional amendment by fiat. If that precedent holds:

• Any ballot initiative can be locked in permanently.
• Dark money interests can hardwire their policies into law.
• Judges, not legislators, will wield the pen of representation.

That is not democracy. That is judicial tyranny.

The way forward is not about winning a political fight; it is about defending the fundamental principles of our government.

1. We must restore legislative accountability and transparency.
2. We must preserve the constitutional authority of the Legislature.
3. We must let voters hold lawmakers accountable at the ballot box—the very mechanism that makes a republic work.

No judge can rewrite Utah’s Constitution. If this precedent is left unchecked, it endangers every state by inviting dark money to lock in permanent statutes and judicially enforced partisan gains. The question of who governs in our republic—elected legislators or unelected judges—is now squarely before us. This question must be answered definitively, in Utah, and ultimately, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

---

Appendices: Academic Credibility for Critics and Journalists

Appendix A: 2018 Ballot Language

“Shall a law be enacted… commission to recommend redistricting plans…”

• Key Point: Advisory, statutory—not constitutional.

Appendix B: 2018 Voter Guide Warnings

Warned Prop 4 might:

• Conflict with Article IX, Section 1.
• Raise separation of powers issues.
• Key Point: Courts ignored these explicit warnings.

Appendix C: SB200 Summary

• Removed vague “public explanation” requirement.
• Allowed partisan data for fairness testing.
• Limited lawsuits.
• Key Point: This was a legitimate legislative fix, not a repeal.

Appendix D: Donor Breakdown (2018 Campaign)

Donor	Amount	Source
Action Now Initiative	$1,123,500	Ballotpedia
Michael Weinholtz	$200,000	Ballotpedia
Campaign for Democracy	$100,000	Ballotpedia
SEIU	$100,000	Ballotpedia
Other donors	$1,275,444	Ballotpedia
Total	$2,798,944

• Key Point: Nearly 80% of funding was concentrated in a few donors.

Appendix E: Timeline

• 2018: Prop 4 passes (50.3%).
• 2020: SB200 amends it.
• 2021: Maps enacted.
• 2022: Lawsuit filed.
• 2024: Utah Supreme Court invents “super-law” doctrine.
• Aug 2025: Judge Gibson voids SB200, orders redraw in 30 days.

Appendix F: FAQ

• Q: Aren’t politicians supposed to serve the people? Yes—and that’s why the Constitution assigns redistricting to legislators, who face voters. Judges don’t.
• Q: Why isn’t this just judicial review? Because review interprets law. This created a new class of law immune to amendment—judicial lawmaking.
• Q: Did SB200 repeal Prop 4? No. It preserved the commission and clarified contradictions. Courts invented “unconstitutional repeal”—a phrase nowhere in Utah law.
• Q: Can a court force the Legislature into session? No. Only the Governor—or 2/3 of lawmakers—can. Gibson’s 30-day command is unconstitutional.
• Q: Isn’t keeping Salt Lake whole fair? It guarantees Democrats one seat (“packing”) and dilutes rural voices. Splitting balances urban/rural Utah.

---

References

• Utah Constitution
• Utah Proposition 4 ballot text
• 2018 Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP)
• SB200 (2020)
• League of Women Voters v. Utah Legislature, 2024 UT 123 (Utah Supreme Court)
• Judge Dianna M. Gibson’s Aug. 25, 2025 order
• Colorado Blueprint analysis
• Ballotpedia campaign finance data
• Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)
• The Federalist Papers, No. 51