A Response to the Tribune That Was Not Published: The Truth About Judicial Map Selection

I submitted the following constitutional analysis to both of Utah’s major newspapers.

The Salt Lake Tribune rejected it unless I accepted their premise that Judge Dianna Gibson was “forced” to select Map 1. That premise is the very issue in dispute. I also submitted this analysis to the Deseret News as a response to the Tribune editorial. They declined to publish it.

As a result, Utah voters were denied serious examination of the most consequential redistricting decision in state history. Not because the analysis was inaccurate. Because it challenged an approved narrative.

I have tightened and expanded the version I sent to them below. The exact submission in a drop down at the end. This is the argument both papers refused to let you read.

When the institutions meant to facilitate public debate refuse to host it, elected officials have a duty to speak directly to the people they serve.

And after reading it, you’ll understand why.

PoliticIt Radio – One Seat Short of the Truth

---

The Tribune’s Central Claim Is Demonstrably False

The Salt Lake Tribune’s December 28 editorial defending Judge Gibson’s redistricting ruling makes a claim that undermines its entire argument. The editorial states that the judge did not draw any maps and simply picked one proposal that followed the rules.

Every part of that sentence is wrong.

Map 1, the congressional map Judge Gibson selected for Utah’s 2026 election, did not follow Proposition 4’s rules. Judge Gibson did not merely choose from compliant alternatives. The Tribune’s defense reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what Proposition 4 requires, what courts are authorized to do, and what occurred in Judge Gibson’s December 26 certification order.

---

What Proposition 4 Actually Requires

Proposition 4 does not merely announce aspirational redistricting principles. It establishes a specific process with institutional actors, procedural requirements, and accountability mechanisms.

The process Proposition 4 mandates includes an independent commission with defined membership requirements, transparency rules and public input obligations, commission drawn maps following anti-gerrymandering standards, submission of maps to the Legislature, public legislative consideration, and enactment by the Legislature.

Map 1, the congressional map proposed by plaintiffs in this lawsuit and selected by Judge Gibson, followed none of this process.

Map 1 was not drawn by the commission. It was not reviewed by the commission. It was not recommended by the commission to the Legislature. It was never submitted to the Legislature under Proposition 4’s procedures.

There were no legislative hearings on Map 1. No amendments. No votes. No public consideration of whether Map 1 complies with Proposition 4 or whether alternative compliant maps might serve Utah better.

Map 1 was submitted by plaintiffs in litigation. Judge Gibson selected it from those submissions.

If the commission process matters, and voters were told it did in 2018, then a map that bypasses that process does not follow the rules regardless of its substantive characteristics.

---

The “Following the Rules” Shell Game

When the Tribune claims Map 1 followed the rules, it substitutes one question for another.

Question one: Does Map 1 follow Proposition 4’s procedural rules for how maps are drawn, reviewed, and enacted?
Answer: No. It bypassed them entirely.

Question two: Does Map 1 comply with Proposition 4’s substantive anti-gerrymandering standards?
Answer: Judge Gibson believes it does. The Legislature disputes this. That dispute is precisely what appellate review exists to resolve.

The Tribune conflates these questions. It treats substantive preference as procedural compliance. But Proposition 4’s rules are not just standards. They are processes.

This is results-based judicial policymaking presented as process compliance.

---

What Courts May and May Not Do

The Tribune argues that distinguishing between drawing maps and picking maps is meaningful. It is not.

Courts review legislative maps for constitutional compliance. When maps fail review, courts identify specific defects and order corrections. If legislatures refuse to comply, courts have enforcement tools. Contempt findings. Monetary sanctions. Orders to show cause. Interim remedies when absolutely necessary.

What courts do not have is authority to choose among compliant policy alternatives.

A legitimate judicial action would be identifying defects and ordering the Legislature to correct them by a date certain.

An illegitimate judicial action is selecting Map 1 from plaintiff submissions because the judge prefers its compliance profile.

The first is judicial review. The second is judicial policymaking.

Judge Gibson did the second.

When a judge selects which map Utah will use, that judge is exercising redistricting authority. The label does not matter. Drawing, picking, selecting, choosing. The function is the same.

The Constitution assigns redistricting power to the Legislature. Courts review for compliance. They do not substitute their policy judgments for legislative choices.

---

The Bad Faith Excuse

The Tribune argues that legislative bad faith justified judicial intervention. That reasoning is constitutionally backwards.

Proposition 4 contains no bad faith exception that authorizes courts to bypass voter-approved processes.

More fundamentally, “bad faith” is a subjective standard often invoked by courts to expand their own jurisdiction. When courts become arbiters of legislative motive, they accumulate power to override legislative acts whenever they disapprove of the reasoning behind them.

Even if the Legislature violated Proposition 4. Even if it did so deliberately. Even if the motives were partisan. The remedy is ordering compliance with Proposition 4’s process. Not replacing that process with judicial map selection.

Separation of powers exists to constrain government when bad faith is alleged. It does not authorize accumulation of power by another branch.

---

The Supreme Court Reversal the Tribune Ignores

The Utah Supreme Court’s interpretation of the alter or reform clause represents a dramatic reversal of its own recent precedent. The Tribune does not acknowledge this.

In 2018, the Court unanimously decided Lehi City v. Meiling. It held that the Legislature could amend or repeal voter-approved initiatives.

In 2024, the same Court reversed that unanimous holding in League of Women Voters. No constitutional amendment occurred. The text of Article I, Section 2 did not change. Only the interpretation changed.

The Tribune does not explain how the same constitutional text produced opposite results within seven years. It simply asserts the new interpretation as settled law.

It is not settled. It is newly created doctrine.

When constitutional interpretation changes this dramatically this quickly, voters deserve the opportunity to decide whether it reflects what they believed they approved.

---

The Constitutional Amendment Paradox

This reversal creates an indefensible constitutional structure.

If initiatives cannot be repealed by future Legislatures, Utah now has two amendment processes.

Article XXIV is deliberately difficult. It requires supermajorities or conventions followed by voter ratification.

The initiative process is comparatively easy. Petition signatures and a simple majority vote.

Under the Court’s new interpretation, initiatives create more permanent law than constitutional amendments.

That makes no structural sense.

The only coherent reading is that initiatives are legislation. Powerful democratic legislation. But legislation nonetheless.

The Tribune does not engage this paradox. It cannot.

---

Gibson’s Certification Shell Game

Even if one accepted the Tribune’s view of Proposition 4, what happened next is indefensible.

On December 26, 2025, Judge Gibson issued a certification order revealing strategic manipulation.

She certified her ruling that Proposition 4 is binding law.

She refused to certify her ruling selecting Map 1.

She stated that the map selection remedy was not complete nor final.

Her exact words: “The Court expressly DENIES the Motion to the extent it requests certification of Count 5 as final. Because the remedy requested by Plaintiffs in Count 5 is not complete nor final, 54(b) certification of Count 5 is DENIED.”

Yet Map 1 governs Utah’s 2026 congressional election.

Read that carefully.

The abstract constitutional theory is reviewable. The concrete exercise of judicial power is insulated.

A remedy cannot be final enough to govern elections and incomplete enough to evade review. That is not finality. It is procedural manipulation.

But Gibson’s certification decision raises a deeper structural question about appellate oversight and the role of finality in judicial remedies. The certification issue is not merely procedural; it speaks to whether courts may implement binding election remedies while effectively blocking ordinary appellate review before those remedies take effect.

---

The Finality Problem and Appellate Oversight

Judge Gibson’s certification order raises a narrow but serious problem of appellate oversight.

On December 26, the court certified its ruling that Proposition 4 remains binding law. That ruling is final and appealable to the Utah Supreme Court.

At the same time, the court denied certification of its ruling selecting Map 1, stating that the remedy was “not complete nor final.”

Despite that characterization, the court ordered Map 1 implemented to govern Utah’s 2026 congressional election.

The issue is not whether courts have discretion under Rule 54(b). They do. The issue is whether a court may implement a permanent, election-governing remedy while structuring its orders so that ordinary appellate review cannot occur before that election takes place.

Finality doctrine exists to prevent exactly this outcome. Courts may avoid piecemeal appeals, but exercises of judicial power producing irreversible consequences must be subject to timely review.

Map 1 is not provisional. It does not preserve the status quo. It creates a new electoral reality that cannot be undone once an election is held.

Candidates will file under it. Campaigns will organize under it. Voters will elect representatives under it.

When a remedy governs an election, delaying review until after that election renders appellate oversight largely academic.

Alternative review mechanisms exist, but they are extraordinary and discretionary. They are not substitutes for ordinary appellate review of a binding statewide remedy.

The separation of powers implications heighten the concern. Selecting congressional districts is an inherently legislative function. When courts exercise that power, even as a remedy, it demands scrutiny, not insulation.

Federal courts recognize this and treat judicial map drawing as an extraordinary intrusion. State courts exercising the same power should face equivalent oversight.

The argument is not that Judge Gibson lacked authority to act. It is that the most consequential exercise of that authority should be reviewable before it reshapes Utah’s congressional representation.

A remedy cannot be final enough to bind elections and nonfinal enough to avoid timely review.

---

The Polling Deception the Tribune Committed

The Tribune cited polling showing only 15 percent want the Legislature to have sole power over redistricting.

From the same poll:

• Only 8 percent support judges selecting maps
• 71 percent prefer elected bodies

The Tribune cited the 15 percent. They concealed the 8 percent.

Judicial map selection is less popular than legislative control. The Tribune mentioned one number and hid the other.

This is selective disclosure designed to support a predetermined conclusion.

---

The Hypocrisy the Tribune Misidentifies

The Tribune accuses the Legislature of hypocrisy for using out-of-state money.

It ignores commission supporters defending a map that bypassed the commission. Transparency advocates defending a process with no hearings. Process defenders excusing elimination of process when courts produce preferred outcomes.

Process matters when it restrains the Legislature. It disappears when courts deliver the desired result.

---

What Republican Efforts to Repeal Actually Represent

It is the Republican Party, not the Legislature as an institution, proposing to refer repeal to voters via initiative.

This is not the Legislature taking power. This is the Legislature asking voters to clarify their intent after seeing how courts have interpreted what they approved.

Voters in 2018 were not told that courts could bypass the commission. They were not told initiatives would become permanent constitutional law. They were not told precedent would be reversed. They were not told judicial map selection could be insulated from review.

Now voters know. The Republican Party is asking them to vote again with complete information.

Letting voters reconsider is democracy. Blocking reconsideration is not.

---

Conclusion

Utah’s 2026 congressional election will be conducted under a map that bypassed the voter-approved process, was selected by a judge rather than the Legislature, and was implemented in a way that prevents ordinary appellate review before the election occurs. That combination should concern anyone who believes in constitutional limits on power. If a remedy is final enough to govern an election, it is final enough to be reviewed before that election happens. Voters deserve the chance to understand what has occurred and to decide whether this outcome reflects their intent.

---

Sen. John D. Johnson represents District 3 in the Utah State Legislature and is Professor Emeritus of Data Analytics and Information Systems at Utah State University. Neither the Salt Lake Tribune nor the Deseret News would publish this analysis. Now you know why.

• Lehi City v. Meiling (2019)
  https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/2019/20170628.html
  Unanimous Utah Supreme Court decision holding that voter-approved initiatives may be amended or repealed by the Legislature.
• League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (2024)
  https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/
  Utah Supreme Court decision interpreting the Alter or Reform Clause and holding that repeal of Proposition 4 was unconstitutional. Navigate to 2024 opinions.
• League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (Third District Court)
  https://www.utcourts.gov/courts/dist/3d/
  Trial court proceedings and remedial orders issued by Judge Dianna Gibson.
• Judge Dianna Gibson, Rule 54(b) Certification Order (December 26, 2025)
  https://www.utcourts.gov/records/
  Certification order denying final judgment as to the map selection remedy while allowing appeal of constitutional claims.
• Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 2 (Alter or Reform Clause)
  https://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleI/Article_I,_Section_2.html
• Utah Constitution, Article XXIV (Amendments and Revisions)
  https://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleXXIV/Article_XXIV.html
• Utah Proposition 4 (2018)
  https://voteinfo.utah.gov/
  Ballot language and voter information for the Independent Redistricting Commission initiative.
• The Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Opinion on Redistricting (December 28, 2025)
  https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/
• Deseret News Editorial Policies
  https://www.deseret.com/pages/about-us/
• Sutherland Institute / Y2 Analytics Statewide Survey (October 2025)
  https://sutherlandinstitute.org/
  Survey of 623 registered Utah voters regarding congressional redistricting authority.
• Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54(b)
  https://www.utcourts.gov/rules/urcp/
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54(b)
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54

Editors note added for clarity this piece is updated and expanded from what was originally sent the the two papers that version is here for the curios:

The Tribune Says Judge Gibson Picked a Map That “Followed the Rules.” That’s False.

By Sen. John D. Johnson

The Salt Lake Tribune’s December 28 editorial defending Judge Dianna Gibson’s redistricting ruling rests on a false premise. The editorial claims: “The judge did not draw any maps. She picked one proposal that followed the rules to replace one that didn’t.”

That statement is wrong. Legally. Procedurally. Constitutionally.

Map 1, which Judge Gibson selected for Utah’s 2026 congressional election, never went through the process Proposition 4 requires. It was never reviewed by the Legislature. It was never considered by the independent redistricting commission. It was submitted by plaintiffs and selected by a judge.

Calling that a map that “followed the rules” misstates what Proposition 4 actually requires.

What Rules Were Supposed to Be Followed

Proposition 4 does not merely announce aspirational redistricting principles. It establishes a specific process. An independent commission draws maps. The commission submits them to the Legislature. The Legislature enacts them.

Map 1 never entered that process.

So when the Tribune says Judge Gibson picked a map that “followed the rules,” what they really mean is that she selected a map she believed complied with anti gerrymandering standards. But judges choosing maps based on their own interpretation of good redistricting policy is precisely what Proposition 4 was designed to prevent.

What Voters Actually Approved

In 2018, voters were told Proposition 4 would establish redistricting standards and create an independent advisory commission to recommend maps to the Legislature.

They were not told:

That the initiative could never be modified by future Legislatures.
That repealing it would violate the Constitution’s alter or reform clause.
That courts could bypass the commission and the Legislature and select congressional maps themselves.

The ballot language described a policy framework. Not a permanent constitutional transfer of redistricting authority to the judiciary.

The Advisory Commission Was Central Not Optional

Proposition 4’s independent commission was not symbolic. It had defined membership requirements, transparency rules, and public input obligations. Its purpose was to introduce independence while preserving legislative accountability.

Map 1 was not drawn by the commission. It was not reviewed by it. It was never recommended to the Legislature.

If the commission process matters, and voters were told it did, then a map that bypasses that process cannot be said to have “followed the rules.” No matter how attractive its results may be.

The Legislature Was Never Allowed to Act

Under Proposition 4, the Legislature receives commission recommendations, considers them publicly, and enacts maps. The Legislature may adopt commission maps or draw its own. But it must act within the voter approved process.

Map 1 was never submitted to the Legislature. There were no hearings. No amendments. No votes. No opportunity to comply.

The Tribune treats this as irrelevant. It suggests legislative bad faith justified judicial intervention.

But Proposition 4 contains no bad faith exception.

Courts do not gain authority to bypass voter approved processes simply because they disagree with legislative conduct.

Even if the Legislature violated Proposition 4, the remedy is to order compliance with the process. Not to discard it.

The Constitutional Amendment Problem

The Utah Supreme Court’s interpretation of Proposition 4 creates a constitutional paradox.

If the Constitution’s alter or reform clause means voter initiatives are effectively permanent, then the Court has created a second constitutional amendment process. One that bypasses the one the Constitution explicitly establishes.

Article XXIV of the Utah Constitution sets forth the amendment process. It requires supermajorities or a constitutional convention, followed by voter ratification. It is deliberately difficult. Constitutional changes are meant to be enduring.

Initiatives, by contrast, require petition signatures and a simple majority vote. If initiatives cannot be repealed by future Legislatures, then they function as stronger and more permanent law than constitutional amendments.

That makes no structural sense.

If the framers intended initiatives to create permanent constitutional limits, there would be no reason to create a separate and more demanding amendment process. The only coherent reading is that initiatives are legislation. Powerful democratic legislation. But legislation nonetheless. Subject to future revision.

Letting Voters Decide Again

It is the Republican Party, not the Legislature, that is proposing to place Proposition 4 repeal before voters. That distinction matters.

Political parties exist to aggregate ideas, test them publicly, and present choices to voters. Asking voters to reconsider Proposition 4 in light of how it has been interpreted and enforced is not an attack on democracy.

It is democracy.

In 2018, voters approved advisory standards and a commission process. In 2025, they have seen those standards interpreted to:

Prohibit legislative modification.
Authorize judicial map selection.
Allow courts to bypass the commission entirely.

If voters want that system, they can vote to keep it. If they do not, they can repeal it.

What is undemocratic is using a 2018 vote on advisory standards to permanently foreclose future voter choice about judicial control of redistricting.

The Strategic Certification Problem

Even if Judge Gibson had authority to select Map 1, and she did not, her December 26 certification order compounds the problem.

She certified her August ruling that Proposition 4 remains operative law. She refused to certify her November ruling selecting Map 1.

By structuring certification this way, she ensured the Utah Supreme Court could review constitutional theory while the map governing an active election remains beyond appellate review.

In effect, courts may debate abstractions while a judge selected map controls real elections without higher court scrutiny.

The Tribune does not address this. It defends the outcome while ignoring the procedural maneuver that shields that outcome from review.

The Real Hypocrisy

Proposition 4 supporters argued that independent processes, transparency, and public input were essential. Now they defend a map that went through none of those things because a judge selected it.

Process matters when it constrains the Legislature. It suddenly does not matter when courts produce preferred outcomes.

That is not respect for voter intent.

It is judicial policymaking justified by results.

The Bottom Line

Map 1 did not follow Proposition 4’s rules. It bypassed the commission. It bypassed the Legislature. It bypassed voter approved procedures.

Voters were not told in 2018 that they were authorizing judicial map selection or creating permanent constitutional limits immune from democratic revision.

The Republican Party’s effort to return this question to voters is not an attempt to undermine democracy. It is an attempt to restore it.

Voters deserve the truth about what Proposition 4 has become. Judicial map selection enforced as permanent constitutional law.

If that is what voters want, they can vote for it. Knowing exactly what it means.

Let voters decide. Fully informed. Free to choose again.

That is what democracy actually looks like.

Sen. John D. Johnson represents District 3 in the Utah State Legislature and is an emeritus professor of data analytics and information systems at Utah State University.