Did Judge Gibson have authority to enact a new district map? Read more in this edition of Priorities Pulse.
The Forward Party builds upon a set of foundational values by asking its members to vote annually on priorities to focus on for the upcoming year. In 2025, members of the Utah Forward Party voted to adopt nineteen issues as priorities, nine of which they voted as top priorities.
Forward Party members and candidates use these priorities to study and discuss data, current events, and policy ideas in these areas.
Each month in this newsletter, we’ll call attention to a few of these priorities. We won’t list all nineteen here, but follow the link above to see a summary of each one.
Top Priority: Separation of Powers
Did Judge Gibson have authority to enact a redistricting map that the Legislature didn’t pass?
That’s the key question in the aftermath of her ruling in the redistricting case. Since separation of powers is a Forward Party of Utah priority, it’s worth taking a look.
The priority is worded like this: Support and strengthen the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Each branch should be strong and independent in order to maintain checks and balances. Resist efforts to politicize and impose partisan politics on the judicial branch of government.
Normally, redistricting maps are enacted by the authority of a state legislature. The Utah Legislature is tasked with “dividing the state into…districts” in Article IX of the Utah Constitution. This duty is limited in Article IX to a certain window of time after the census results are released every ten years.
Prop 4 also said that the Legislature “may enact” a map in case of a successful legal challenge to one that was already enacted. But Prop 4 says that a new map still has to be lawful according to certain neutral, nonpartisan criteria.
Unfortunately, the constitution and laws are silent on the important question of who can decide on a map when the Legislature doesn’t pass a lawful one in time for the next election. Is there an absence of authority to correct the problem?
The answer is that the judge has authority to fix the problem, and it is not a legislative authority but a judicial one. It comes in two parts: the power of judicial review (you may remember the Marbury v. Madison case from the earliest days of our nation) and the power of equitable relief.
Judicial review authorizes the courts to judge the constitutionality and legality of a government action when a lawsuit is brought. If a judge finds that a law or an action does not meet the legal standard under our constitution and any other controlling laws, then the judge can rule that it is not valid and has no effect.
Equitable relief is a power of the judiciary all the way back to medieval England. It is an authority for a judge to order a remedy that rights a wrong, where there are no other options. It comes into play when a court makes a ruling, but when the problem can’t be fixed by a fine or punishment or making someone honor a contract.
In this case, Judge Gibson compared the Utah Legislature’s Map C to the requirements of the law and the state constitution, and found that it was unlawful because it violated some of the Prop 4 criteria. This was an exercise of her authority of judicial review. It meant Map C, being unlawful, could not replace the Legislature’s previous map which had also been found unlawful.
Map C was passed by the Legislature just 34 days before a map had to be in place for next year’s elections. This left no time for the judge to evaluate it and schedule another effort by the Legislature. Judge Gibson’s authority of equitable relief was activated, to ensure we the people of Utah could have a lawful map in place.
Back to the original question: Did Judge Gibson have authority to enact a map that the Legislature didn’t draw? The answer is yes: it was done by powers vested in the judiciary and did not trespass on the Legislature’s ordinary duty to redistrict. The separation of powers was respected, and the judiciary served as a constitutional check on the Legislature to make sure that the constitution and laws were obeyed. This protected and preserved our rights as Utah citizens to have lawful representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Some people are upset at the judge’s ruling and are seeking ways to punish, remove, or override her accordingly. Consider the final sentence of the Separation of Powers priority: Resist efforts to politicize and impose partisan politics on the judicial branch of government. If you agree that the judge was within her authority, then reach out to your state representatives in the Legislature to express your views and ask them to respect the judge’s ruling and to protect the independence of the judiciary from partisanship.
