Utah Supreme Court will review Legislature’s request to pause redistricting ruling

On Saturday, Justice Jill Pohlman granted the request for an expedited review in a brief order, giving the original plaintiffs through Tuesday to respond to the Legislature’s request for relief. Lawmakers have through Thursday to file an additional response.

“No extensions of time will be permitted, and no requests for over length briefs will be considered,” Pohlman wrote.

At the same time, Gibson adjusted her initial ruling on Saturday, noting that in ordering the Legislature to redraw the maps, the court “overstepped its authority.” Gibson’s updated ruling now states the Legislature “may enact” a new redistricting plan. The judge, however, still emphasized that the current congressional maps cannot be used.

“That ‘order’ failed to recognize the separation of powers between our courts and our Legislature and unintentionally failed to respect the Legislature’s authority to determine how to address the court’s order enjoining” the congressional maps, Gibson wrote.

Gibson’s updated order still spells out a timeline under which the Legislature will publish new maps by Sept. 25, followed by a 10-day public comment period. In their request for emergency review, lawmakers asked the justices to grant or deny their request to stay the ruling by Sept. 15.

Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson’s office has said any new maps need to be in place by Nov. 10 for use in the 2026 midterm elections.

“We really trust the Utah Supreme Court will weigh the case with the gravity it deserves because it’s not just about maps,” said Elizabeth Rasmussen, executive director of Better Boundaries, the group behind Proposition 4. “It’s really about the integrity of our elections and the faith Utahns place in these democratic processes.”

Utah House and Senate leadership did not immediately have a comment on Gibson’s updated ruling, but a legislative official told KSL it was an “interesting” change.

“It does reinforce that redistricting is the Legislature’s responsibility, as outlined in the Constitution,” the official said.

KSL legal analyst Greg Skordas said it’s “not necessarily common that a court will revisit its own orders,” but said “it’s also not inappropriate in any way.”

The original plaintiffs had not responded to the petition with the Supreme Court as of Tuesday afternoon. Both parties now await word from the five justices about how the case will proceed.

“The Supreme Court normally doesn’t have to act quickly, but with a looming election cycle and with a looming time when election officials have to get ballots out and get districts set up, it’s in everybody’s best interests that we hear this sooner rather than later,” Skordas added.

Related:

Utah files emergency stay to Utah Supreme Court in redistricting case