Utah’s Supreme Court, in a hearing, expressed doubt over the State Legislature’s claim of possessing unchallengeable authority to draw congressional districts, resulting in diluted Democratic votes. The Legislature, controlled by Republicans, approved a map in 2021 that favored their party and disregarded the 2018 ballot initiative passed by Utah voters to prevent gerrymandering.
The case revolves around whether the state’s courts can hear a lawsuit challenging the Legislature’s map or if it falls beyond their jurisdiction as a political matter. Voting-rights advocates argue that Utah’s Constitution provides a stronger basis for addressing political maps.
The Court focused on the Legislature’s repeal of the 2018 initiative, which grants political power to the people to alter and reform their government. Advocates believe the repeal undermined democratic principles, but the Legislature defended its exclusive authority to draw maps.
This Utah case could have national implications, affecting the U.S. House’s political balance and shaping legal precedents in other states. With federal courts barred from partisan gerrymander cases, state courts have become crucial battlegrounds for opposing skewed maps.
Various state courts have already ruled partisan gerrymanders unconstitutional, adding to the importance of these cases. However, some courts’ decisions have faced challenges in enforcement due to legislative resistance.
The Utah plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, argue that the gerrymandered map violates state constitutional provisions guaranteeing free speech, association, and equal protection.
While Republican legislators claim their right to repeal the redistricting law, advocacy groups assert that their aim is to maintain power in their favor. The case centers on the State Supreme Court’s five justices, known for their independence, chosen through a merit-based selection process.
In Utah’s case, the struggle against gerrymandering persists as groups seek to uphold democratic principles and challenge the Legislature’s actions to protect their interests.
COMMENTS