Utah’s 2018 Proposition 4 was sold as a “transparency” measure. What voters actually passed was a statute—an advisory redistricting commission—not a constitutional amendment. The state’s official voter guide even warned that Prop 4 might conflict with Article IX, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution, which vests redistricting power exclusively in the Legislature.

The Legislature amended Prop 4 through SB200 (2020) to fix contradictions and preserve constitutional order. But in a stunning act of judicial overreach, the Utah Supreme Court (2024) invented a new legal doctrine, creating a category of “super-laws”—initiatives immune from legislative amendment. Subsequently, Judge Dianna Gibson (2025) applied this doctrine, voided SB200, struck down the 2021 maps, and ordered the Legislature to redraw districts within 30 days. This action, by attempting to commandeer a coequal branch of government, is the very definition of judicial overreach.

This is not a partisan dispute; it is a fundamental challenge to the rule of law. It violates the separation of powers, disregards the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, and enables a national “dark money” strategy that seeks to subvert a republican form of government. If left unchecked, this precedent could threaten every state, justifying U.S. Supreme Court review under the Elections Clause and the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution.