Watchdog groups back lawsuit against Utah congressional map, allege partisan gerrymandering

[ad_1]

Estimated reading time: 4-5 minutes

SALT LAKE CITY Two watchdog organizations have filed amicus briefs in a lawsuit asking the Utah Supreme Court to strike down Utah’s new congressional map and give an independent redistricting commission the power to create political borders in the future.

The lawsuit, filed in Utah’s 3rd Judicial District Court by the League of Utah Women Voters and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, alleges that the Utah Legislature enacted an “extreme partisan gerrymander.” when she endorsed the new map, which the groups say undermines the Utahns. right to participate meaningfully in elections.

Common Cause, a national anti-gerrymandering organization, and the United Democracy Center in the United States both recently filed amicus or “friend of the court” briefs alongside plaintiffs in League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature.

“Politicians shouldn’t be able to choose their voters, but that’s exactly what partisan lawmakers are trying to do,” said Dan Vicua, national redistricting director for Common Cause. “By removing the citizen-led redistricting commission, lawmakers want to keep the power for themselves. We hope the court will uphold the will of the people by restoring the authority (of the commission) and the power of the people to choose its leaders.

Utahns voted in 2018 to approve an independent redistricting commission when they passed Proposition 4 in 2018. Redistricting only happens once a decade, meaning new political boundaries can shape political power for the coming years.

In 2020, the Utah Legislature compromised with Better Boundaries, the group behind Proposition 4, and agreed to let the commission recommend new maps while letting lawmakers have the final say.

Lawmakers ignored the commission’s recommendations in 2021 and went with a map they drew themselves.

In arguments similar to those advanced by the plaintiffs, the United Democracy Center of the United States argued that gerrymandering “undermines the pillars of representative government: building consensus, working collaboratively, and finding common ground for the good from the whole”.

David Irvine, former Utah Supreme Court Justice and member of the Utah House of Representatives, filed the case on behalf of the United Democracy Center of the United States.

“The modern practice of extreme partisan gerrymandering is not only inconsistent with our founding principles; it undermines the functioning of our democracy. … Partisan gerrymandering encourages polarization, hindering the sound governance that has been a cornerstone of the success of our nation,” the brief reads.

Common Cause argued that the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission met the highest standards for nonpartisan redistricting.

“Our effort in acting as amicus curiae in this brief is to highlight the work of the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission,” Vicua said. “The UIRC has been an outstanding example of how neutrality, fairness and transparency can protect the rights of all voters and preserve public confidence in our election results and in our democracy.”

“Unfortunately, the Utah Legislature chose to ignore the voice of the people and the work of the UIRC, first when it repealed Proposition 4 and then again when it crafted and enacted a map of Congress gerrymandered,” their brief read.

Groups like New York University Law School’s Brennan Center for Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union have also filed a request for plaintiff support.

Several groups have also filed briefs in support of the existing map, including Utah Republican Representatives Blake Moore, Chris Stewart, John Curtis and Burgess Owens.

Members of Congress have argued that members of Congress have a stake in the drawing of congressional maps of the state, which have the potential to affect the makeup of their districts.

They also said that the U.S. Congress is primarily responsible for reviewing redistricting maps under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which states that “the times, places, and manner of holding elections…shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or modify such regulations.”

“The delegation understands, however, that the primary responsibility for oversight in this area lies not with the state courts but with the United States Congress,” their brief read. “This Court should not do what respondents are asking and invalidate a congressional constituency plan under vague constitutional clauses in the absence of a clear anti-partisan-gerrymandering rule created by the state legislature of l ‘Utah.”

A district court judge denied the Legislature’s motion to dismiss the case in October, allowing it to proceed. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on July 11.

×Related StoriesThe Latest Utah Congressional Redistricting Stories

Bridger Beal-Cvetko covers Utah politics, Salt Lake County communities and breaking news for KSL.com. He graduated from Utah Valley University.

More stories that might interest you

[ad_2]