Editorial
Opinion: Utah’s Redistricting Fight Isn’t About Politics — It’s About the Constitution
Speaking recently to Park City’s Les Deux Magots Coffee Club—a circle of writers, philosophers, and civic thinkers modeled after the famed Paris café where Sartre and de Beauvoir once debated freedom—Sen. John D. Johnson delivered a talk on Utah’s constitutional crossroads. Against the backdrop of steaming cups and morning light in the Wasatch mountains, Johnson framed Utah’s redistricting controversy not as a partisan dispute but as a test of the Republic’s design. “Who,” he asked, “draws the boundaries of our democracy—and who guards the guardians?” His address traced the issue from Utah’s founding charter to the modern courtroom, urging that fidelity to process, not power, is what keeps self-government alive.
By Sen. John D. Johnson
Last week, while walking through Paris, I paused in front of Les Deux Magots—the café where Sartre and de Beauvoir once debated freedom and where Hemingway trimmed his prose to perfection. Back home, Park City has its own “Les Deux Magots” club—a gathering of thinkers who meet to test ideas over coffee.
When I spoke to that group this week, I posed a question that far outweighs ephemeral partisan talking points: Who, ultimately, draws the boundaries of our self-government—and who guards the separation of powers? That question lies at the center of Utah’s ongoing redistricting saga—a constitutional odyssey that will determine not just how our political maps are drawn, but how the essential machinery of self-government endures.
The Constitutional Compass: Legislative Supremacy in Drawing Maps
Since 1896, Utah’s Constitution has been clear on the matter of representation. Article IX, Section 1 states: *“The Legislature shall divide the state into congressional, legislative, and other districts as provided by law.”*¹
Those words are not decorative; they are a direct assignment of power. This explicit grant was designed to balance a geographically and economically diverse state—coal miners in Carbon County, ranchers in San Juan, and families along the Wasatch Front—within a single, representative framework.
Thomas Jefferson called the people “the only legitimate fountain of power.”² Utah’s founders structured that fountain to flow through elected representatives, precisely because they are directly accountable to the voters—unlike courts or commissions insulated from electoral review. The Legislature’s role here is not optional; it is a constitutional mandate.
PoliticIt – Radio – Who draws the Lines
The People’s Safety Valve Is Not a Constitutional Override
Utah’s founders also left the people a crucial safety valve: the power of initiative and referendum. Added in 1900 during the Progressive Era, Article VI, Section 1(2) allows citizens to propose or reject laws directly³—a fundamental check on unresponsive legislatures.
However, this check is not a constitutional override. As the Utah Supreme Court held in Carter v. Lehi City (2012), “the people’s initiative power reaches to the full extent of the legislative power, but no further.”⁴ Likewise, in Gallivan v. Walker (2002), the Court reaffirmed that the initiative right is a fundamental constitutional right that warrants heightened scrutiny when burdened.⁵
The initiative power is a parallel, co-equal stream of legislative authority. To use a metaphor: the initiative and the Legislature are two keys to the same front door. Either can open it to pass an ordinary statute, but neither can legally remodel the house itself without triggering the formal constitutional amendment process.
The Judicial Imposition of “Super-Law”
The current crisis began in 2018, when voters narrowly approved Proposition 4—the Better Boundaries initiative—by 50.34 percent (512,218 to 505,274 votes).⁶ It was financed by roughly $2.8 million, about 60 percent from out-of-state donors.⁷
Two years later, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 200 (2020) to refine the measure—clarifying how data could be used, limiting lawsuits, and, crucially, preserving the Legislature’s core constitutional authority by affirming the commission’s advisory role. The goal was not defiance, but constitutional fidelity: maintaining Article IX authority while respecting voters’ action.
Then came the judicial transformation of ordinary law. In League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (2024), the Utah Supreme Court ruled that modifying Proposition 4 “impaired” the people’s initiative power and subjected the Legislature’s amendment to strict scrutiny.⁸
In August 2025, District Judge Dianna Gibson went further—voiding SB 200’s effect and ordering that Proposition 4 be reinstated pending appeal.⁹ In practical terms, the court placed one statute above the Constitution, shielding it from legislative amendment.
This ruling ignores more than a century of precedent—including Gallivan, Carter, and Utah Power & Light Co. v. Public Service Commission (1945)¹⁰—all of which treat the initiative power as producing ordinary law, amendable like any other. By elevating this single statute into an unamendable “super-law,” the court has transformed Utah’s constitutional design of co-equality into a judicial hierarchy.
Why the Precedent Matters: Legislative Paralysis
To picture the systemic problem, imagine the Constitution as Utah’s operating system. It sets the fundamental permissions—who can do what. A bill or initiative is merely an app running on that system; it can be updated or deleted by legislative action. A constitutional amendment, by contrast, changes the system itself, requiring a two-thirds legislative vote plus voter approval.
Proposition 4 was an app, not an update. The people did not—and legally could not—rewrite Article IX through a statutory initiative. When the court elevated that statute above the Constitution’s amendability requirements, it effectively rewrote the operating system by judicial shortcut—granting one political outcome a permanent legal shield.
That is the overreach I described in my essay “A Constitutional Crisis in Utah.”
This debate isn’t about partisanship; it is about process and the separation of powers. As the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), “federal judges have no commission to redraw political maps.”¹¹ The same principle should hold here: redistricting belongs to the branch of government the people can remove at the next election—not to the lifetime-appointed judiciary.
The Path Forward: Restoring Constitutional Stability
The Utah Republican Party—not the Legislature itself—has now launched a referendum and indirect initiative to restore constitutional clarity. Critics call it political, but the stakes reach far beyond district lines.
If a single statutory initiative passed by 50.3 percent can be judicially insulated from amendment, then any future initiative—on water rights, school vouchers, or gun control—could become an untouchable super-law, binding future generations without formal constitutional review. That is not reform; it is legislative paralysis.
Utah’s founders designed a system where power alternates and remains accountable. If Utahns wish to change Article IX, there is only one lawful way: a constitutional amendment, debated publicly, passed by two-thirds of the Legislature, and ratified by the people. That process may be slower, but it safeguards the principle that has kept our republic stable for more than a century: laws change by persuasion and accountability, not by judicial decree.
Democracy’s boundaries are drawn in our unwavering respect for process. Utah’s Constitution is not a relic; it is a living covenant. To defend its structure is not regression. It is renewal.
Sen. John D. Johnson represents Utah Senate District 3 and is professor emeritus of Data Analytics and Information Systems at Utah State University.
Footnotes / References
- Utah Constitution, Art. IX § 1 — Apportionment. Justia Law
- Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (1798).
- Utah Constitution, Art. VI § 1(2). 50 Constitutions Project
- Carter v. Lehi City, 2012 UT 2, ¶ 28, 269 P.3d 141. Justia Law
- Gallivan v. Walker, 2002 UT 89, 54 P.3d 1069. Justia Law
- Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office, Official Election Results (2018). elections.utah.gov
- National Institute on Money in Politics, “Utah 2018 Initiatives: Proposition 4 – Better Boundaries.” FollowTheMoney.org
- League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, 2024 UT 21 (554 P.3d 872). StateCourtReport.org
- Utah News Dispatch, “Judge orders Utah Legislature to draw new congressional map,” Aug. 25 2025. utahnewsdispatch.com
- Utah Power & Light Co. v. Public Service Commission, 107 Utah 155 (1945).
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), 139 S.Ct. 2484, 2506.
