FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 3, 2025
CONTACT: Corey Astill • info@summit-institute-law.org
Utah Proposition 4: A Guide to Redistricting Reform and Constitutional Concerns
Lehi, Utah –This primer is the first of many summaries the Institute will offer to help the public better understand Utah Proposition 4, a citizen initiative at the center of ongoing debates about redistricting, legislative authority, and the role of the courts. We aim to explain the key events and legal issues in clear terms, so that everyday Utahns can grasp their significance without getting lost in legal jargon.
To help citizens, policymakers, and the media cut through the noise, here’s a straightforward guide to Proposition 4, why it matters, and what’s happening now.
Utah Proposition 4, known as the Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative, was approved by voters in the 2018 general election by a slim margin of 50.34%. This measure sought to reform how Utah draws its congressional and state legislative districts, with the goal of reducing partisan influence in the process.
It established a seven-member independent commission appointed to draft proposed maps. The commission must follow neutral criteria, such as:
Importantly, Proposition 4 prohibits the use of partisan political data in drawing map boundaries, aiming to promote fairness and transparency.
Under the initiative, the commission is required to propose up to three maps for each type of district, hold public hearings, rely on the best available data, and submit its plans to the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court for certification.
The Utah State Legislature then reviews these proposals in a public session, with at least 10 days’ notice for public comment. Lawmakers can enact one of the commission’s maps or reject them and adopt their own, but if they choose the latter, they must issue a detailed written report explaining how their alternative aligns with the same neutral standards.
This structure was designed to encourage accountability while preserving the Legislature’s ultimate role in redistricting.
In 2020, the Utah Legislature enacted Senate Bill 200, which amended significant portions of Proposition 4, including the prohibition on partisan gerrymandering, and redesigned the commission to an advisory capacity. This allowed the Legislature to draw its own maps without the same constraints.
Organizations such as the League of Women Voters of Utah challenged this action in court, arguing that it undermined the voters’ will.
The case reached the Utah Supreme Court, which ruled on July 11, 2024, that the Legislature had exceeded its authority by amending core elements of Proposition 4.
The court held that this violated the people’s constitutional right to alter or reform their government through initiatives, as protected under Article I, Section 2 (emphasizing popular sovereignty) and Article VI, Section 1 (granting the people legislative power parallel to the Legislature’s) of the Utah Constitution.
While the Summit Institute respects the court’s intent to uphold voter initiatives, we have concerns that this decision may introduce novel interpretations not grounded in the Constitution’s original public meaning.
The Utah Constitution treats citizen initiatives as ordinary statutes once enacted, subject to the Legislature’s plenary power to amend or repeal them, just as with any other law. Article VI, Section 1 describes the people’s initiative power as “parallel and co-extensive” with the Legislature’s, not elevated above it.
By creating special protections for “government-reform” initiatives, the ruling risks establishing a hierarchy of laws unsupported by the constitutional text, potentially leading to uncertainty and increased litigation.
For instance, it raises questions about what qualifies as “government reform”—could it include tax policies or environmental regulations? Such ambiguity could invite judicial overreach, straining the separation of powers outlined in Article V, Section 1, and disrupting Utah’s republican form of government under Article I, Section 3, where elected representatives are meant to refine and implement the public will.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On August 25, 2025, Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that the Legislature’s 2021 congressional map (enacted under House Bill 2004) was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, particularly for dividing Salt Lake County into four districts in a way that diluted votes from the minority party.
The judge struck down the map, reinstated Proposition 4 in full, and ordered the creation of new, compliant maps for the 2026 elections.
However, this decision has raised additional questions about judicial boundaries:
Recent developments underscore the ongoing nature of this dispute. On August 29, 2025, the Utah Legislature filed a motion asking Judge Gibson to pause her ruling or allow an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, citing concerns about feasibility and legal clarity.
A hearing on timelines for the redistricting process followed, reflecting efforts to balance court orders with practical implementation. Republican legislative leaders have indicated they will comply with the ruling by redrawing the maps, though they have expressed reservations about the process.
Even as these events unfold, it is important to recognize that Proposition 4, at its core, functions as a procedural framework rather than a strict substantive mandate.
It promotes transparency through public input and reasoned explanations but does not divest the Legislature of its broad discretion in map-drawing. Courts’ role in reviewing such matters should be limited to verifying procedural compliance—ensuring the commission proposed valid maps, public hearings occurred, and the Legislature provided a justified explanation for any deviations—without substituting judicial preferences for legislative judgments.
As the Supreme Court itself noted, Proposition 4 does not remove the Legislature’s authority to enact maps; it serves as a check on the process to foster accountability.
For Utahns, the outcome will shape how future ballot initiatives are treated and to what degree Utah will adhere to longstanding constitutional interpretation.
For the country, Utah is becoming a test case for the clash between voter initiatives, legislative power, and judicial interpretation.
The debate will continue. But understanding the basics of Proposition 4 helps cut through the legal fog. It’s about fair representation—and who gets the final word on how Utah draws the lines.
About the Summit Institute for Law & Policy
The Summit Institute believes maintaining constitutional integrity requires careful adherence to textual meanings, respect for separation of powers, and judicial restraint to avoid undue interference in policy matters best left to elected bodies. This case highlights the delicate balance between direct democracy via initiatives and representative governance.
We encourage Utahns to stay informed and engage in these discussions, as they shape the foundations of fair representation. For more resources on constitutional principles, visit our website or contact us for educational materials.
The Summit Institute for Law & Policy is dedicated to advancing constitutional integrity and promoting judicial restraint through nonpartisan education and research. Our mission is to help citizens understand the principles that underpin our government, ensuring that laws and court decisions align with the original meaning of constitutions while respecting the balance of powers.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.