Judge over gerrymandering case against Utah legislature asks for clarification over tossing maps
NOTE: A lawsuit represents one side of a story.
SALT LAKE CITY () — The lower court judge presiding over a is asking for the parties to provide more arguments over tossing out Utah's current congressional maps — signaling that a resolution to the suit could be nearing.
According to an order issued March 31, Third District Judge Dianna Gibson is asking for additional information from the lawyers representing the plaintiffs — who are the , , and seven Salt Lake residents.
The group is suing the legislature, arguing that Utah's current congressional boundaries should be thrown out. The plaintiffs argue the legislature violated Utahns' rights when lawmakers overturned a citizen-backed independent commission and its anti-gerrymandering criteria, created by Proposition 4, to draw those lines.
Utah House polls members about overrides on the six 2025 vetoes
Specifically, Judge Gibson is asking for more arguments on whether she can just toss the maps because the legislature didn't comply with Prop 4's criteria, or if an evidentiary hearing would be needed to determine if the maps are indeed unlawful.
'Is that alone sufficient legal basis to grant a permanent injunction of SB 200?' Judge Gibson asked.
Furthermore, the judge wants more arguments on why she should permanently toss the legislature's maps.
'The (plaintiffs) did not cite any legal or factual authority, but an injunction of SB200 was not before the court,' the order says.
The groups argued that because said lawmakers do not have unlimited power to repeal ballot initiatives; rather, when an initiative 'alters or reforms' government, any changes must be 'narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest,' the same standard should apply to the permanant injunction.
'Please clarify the legal basis for Plaintiffs' position that a permanent injunction of SB 2004 is an appropriate remedy if the court grants Plaintiffs' Motion…' Judge Gibson writes.
The order asks for the additional arguments by the end of the day on April 8, at which point the legislature would have about a week to file its response. The plaintiffs would be given another opportunity to reply if they choose to do so.
It's unclear when a ruling in the case might be coming, and the order does not mean the ruling will toss out the maps. However, it does signal that the judge has gotten to the point where she's asking about what the remedy might be.
This complex case started back in 2018, when a , was passed by voters, creating an independent redistricting commission to draw the new boundaries Utah uses today.
In 2020, the Utah Legislature watered down Prop 4, — and the plaintiffs argue those maps are gerrymandered.
In 2022, the plaintiffs sued, arguing the lines 'crack' Salt Lake into four districts to dilute minority votes in the Republican stronghold and that Utahns have a constitutionally protected right to 'alter and reform' their government — which they attempted to do via Prop 4.
In 2024, the that top lawmakers called the worst decision they've ever seen. That ruling kicked the case back to the lower courts to determine its fate.
In January of 2025, the parties argued the merits of the case before Gibson. Lt. Governor Deidre Henderson has asked that the case be finalized before November 1 so that if new lines need to be drawn, they can be drawn before the 2026 midterm elections.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Highland approves golf carts on 25 mph city roads
HIGHLAND, Utah (ABC4) — Golf carts are now conditionally allowed on Highland streets after the city council voted on an ordinance Tuesday. Four out of five councilmembers voted in favor of allowing golf carts on 25 mph roads in Highland, with Councilmember Scott Smith objecting due to safety concerns. The ordinance passed with a few restrictions, namely that golf carts are only allowed on city roads with speed limits of 25 mph and under, drivers must be at least 18 years of age, and no driving after dark. Utah House Majority leader resigns to take new role in Governor's Office The council also added penalties for cart owners who allow minors to drive a golf cart on city roads. Penalties would also be given to those who drive under the influence. The council's debate was between personal liberty and safety, with concerns centered around children on laps and speeding vehicles on the same roads as carts. 'The problem is we have neighborhood after neighborhood come in here complain about speeding, so no one follows the 25 mph,' Smith said. 'I just think we've got to be really careful because they're going to be competing at a lower rate with cars that are going 25 plus … So what street is really safe is my question.' Councilmembers in favor of the ordinance argued that this is 'a desire of our residents,' with many community members expressing interest in driving golf carts to visit neighbors or go to church and parks. WATCH: Bodycam footage released after over 150 dogs rescued from Ogden home 'Why are we restricting things when we don't have to restrict them?' Councilmember Ron Campbell said in his argument for the ordinance. 'We all have a right to risk, we all have a right for liberty, and golf carts are a part of the community that has come forward and said we would like this.' Smith, who is a physician, said he is 'very concerned' about safety issues and isn't against liberty just because he thinks this is an 'act of foolishness.' Ultimately, Smith said he would support what the majority votes for. The council decided to pass the ordinance and look at it after some time to see if changes needed to be made to the regulations. Highland is now the sixth Utah community to allow golf carts on city roads. Baby fox rescued after falling into irrigation drain in Farmington Keeping hydration delicious and effective Utah couple flown to hospital after semi-truck crashes through Wellington home CBO: House GOP plan exceeds $880B savings target Trump signs executive order aimed at slashing prescription drug costs Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
The Pride Month ‘vibe shift' comes to Utah. Can Utahns find common ground this June?
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox broke with his party this week as the only Republican governor to make a statement in response to what some celebrate as Pride Month during the month of June. But he also broke from his own custom. Instead of officially declaring June 'Pride Month' — as he had his first three years in office — Cox released a simple message, similar to last year's declaration, about the importance of seeking unity and compassion. 'This June I'm reflecting on the values that bring us together here in Utah — service, respect, and love for our neighbor," Cox said in a post on X. 'To those celebrating Pride and to all Utahns: may we keep building bridges of understanding and strive always to see the humanity in one another.' As has become a common feature of the polarized discourse on social media, Cox's statement earned the ire of LGBTQ activists, for not officially recognizing Pride Month, and conservative influencers, for acknowledging the occasion at all. While it may have failed to please partisans on both sides of the spectrum, the governor's message might point to a better way to strengthen a pluralistic society, according to Paul Edwards, director of the Wheatley Institute at Brigham Young University. A focus on personal bridge-building can transcend the conflict between divisive diversity, equity and inclusion efforts that amplify identity politics, and a rigid affirmation of traditional values that ignores cultural differences, Edwards said. 'It's vital that we get this right because we do need to live together in some kind of peace,' Edwards said in an interview with the Deseret News. 'And that is possible, probably in more ways than we sometimes believe.' This year has seen a number of organizations — public and private — back away from their previously open endorsements of Pride Month celebrations. The Utah Transit Authority will not participate in this year's Pride parade for the first time since 2022 as part of a temporary hold to ensure 'consistency and responsible stewardship of public funds,' according to a UTA spokesperson. Likewise, the University of Utah has discontinued its official sponsorship of the downtown Salt Lake City Pride celebration, which it had supported for 'several years,' according to a university spokesperson. The university will still encourage students to join its entry in the parade and continues to hold a 'Pride Week' every spring while students are on campus, featuring a fundraising 'gayla' and 'Drag Bingo.' These changes in Pride participation follow a series of steps taken by state lawmakers to restrict some transgender treatments for minors, prevent exclusionary DEI practices at government entities and prohibit most flags in public schools. But they also come amid what some are proclaiming a 'vibe shift‚" or cultural realignment away from socially liberal stances. After years of touting their support of Pride, corporations like Comcast, Anheuser-Busch and Nissan have pulled funding from Pride festivals across the country; organizations like Target have swapped rainbow decorations for American flags; and the Trump administration has officially declared June 'Title IX Month.' 'There's a massive vibe shift,' anti-DEI activist Robby Starbuck told the Deseret News. 'The public-facing things they used to do like Pride logos on their social media, or company-wide emails are no longer happening.' Policy changes like this can be attributed to a backlash among Americans, many of them parents, who believe 'symbols matter' when it comes to the places they will spend their money, according to Starbuck. But, he acknowledged, it is also the result of partisan activism, like his own, that verbally attacks, shames and boycotts organizations for taking a public position on an increasingly politicized issue. This year Starbuck has mobilized a group of supporters to film Pride parades around the country to document 'inappropriate behavior that occurs in view of children' and then to link the events to the companies sponsoring them. 'What you tolerate, in many ways, becomes who you are,' Starbuck said. 'However you bring about that change to bring something positive to the forefront, I don't think that really matters.' One state lawmaker, Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, has drafted a bill for next session that would wield state power to discourage private organizations from announcing support of messages like Pride Month if they receive public subsidies. Lee, the primary sponsor of the 2024 law banning political flags in classrooms and on government flagpoles, told the Deseret News the bill in its current form would make taxpayer dollars in public-private partnerships contingent on organizations remaining politically neutral. Lee teased the legislation during a social media spat over the weekend where he criticized Pride Month posts from the Utah Jazz and Utah Mammoth — both owned by Smith Entertainment Group which is set to receive nearly $1 billion in public funds to revitalize parts of downtown. 'This isn't necessarily about Pride,' Lee said. 'It's about political neutrality.' Marina Lowe, the policy director of one of Utah's largest LGBTQ advocacy organizations, Equality Utah, slammed Lee's proposal as 'unAmerican' and 'anti-conservative,' arguing that it violates the First Amendment by telling private businesses what speech they can use. From her point of view, Pride Month and the rainbow flag shouldn't be considered political in the first place; they represent 'a celebration of love, community, getting to be oneself authentically,' Lowe said. What the so-called 'vibe shift' really shows, whether it be in statements from public officials or support from corporations, is how intense polarization, which stirs outrage across the political spectrum, has chilled free expression, Lowe said. 'That is sort of the world that we're living in right now, that it's impossible to take positions on things without that being weaponized against one side or the other,' Lowe said. 'We do need to get to a better place of healthy pluralism, where we all can coexist and work together, despite the fact that we have differences and differences of opinions about topics.' On Friday, standing in front of the City and County Building, Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall launched Pride Month by raising a Progress Pride Flag imprinted with the city's logo. A month earlier, the altered version of Salt Lake City's flag was officially adopted in a successful move to skirt the Legislature's new law prohibiting local governments from flying most flags. In her speech, Mendenhall said the 'new Sego Belonging Flag' celebrates 'the diversity of the LGBTQ community' and 'does not exclude others.' However, several conservative constituents took to social media to express anger that the city would continue to promote a message that many Utahns feel conflicts with their deeply held beliefs about family, identity and sexuality. One Utah leader, who understands both sides of the Pride Month debate, said there is a way for all Utahns, regardless of whether 'Pride' encourages or offends them, to be intentional about reaching out to others. The Rev. Marian Edmonds-Allen is a gay pastor based in Ogden who directs a group called Parity, an international nonprofit that works to heal 'LGBT and faith divides,' and who played a significant role in shaping Utah's 2015 'Utah Compromise,' that balanced LGBTQ anti-discrimination protections with religious freedom rights. More recently, her organization completed a pilot program with students and faculty from Brigham Young University called 'Faith, Hope, and Love' that aims to help religious individuals 'stand strong in their faith and convictions while maintaining a posture of compassion and grace in relationship with LGBT individuals.' 'Often someone knows a person who is LGBT, either at their workplace or in their family or their neighborhood, it's a wonderful time to say, 'Thinking of you and your family,'' the Rev. Edmonds-Allen said. 'It doesn't need to mention Pride or LGBT, but just being friendly to someone.' In her experience, Utah has been 'a shining light' in demonstrating what the Rev. Edmonds-Allen calls 'covenantal pluralism,' the idea that people of faith can hold firm to their religious beliefs while still being able to interact with someone who believes differently. Far from being a softening of one's beliefs, the Rev. Edmonds-Allen views this intentional cultivation of pluralism as 'a fundamental principle of Christianity.' It is also one of the core 'responsibilities of citizenship,' according to BYU's Paul Edwards. As the excesses of DEI have elicited an equally 'dogmatic' response in the opposite direction, Edwards believes it is more important than ever for Americans 'to try to understand our fellow citizens.' 'There's just too many sharp elbows out there right now and hurtful words,' Edwards said. 'We all love this great state and this great country, and let's find ways to honor that and not be seeking for ways to be offended by a word or a flag.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Utah attorneys sanctioned by appeals court for using AI to write legal brief
Two Utah attorneys were sanctioned after the Utah Court of Appeals found that they violated procedural rules for lawyers by citing cases that did not exist and appeared to have been created through artificial intelligence. The court's opinion says this is the first time Utah courts have addressed using AI when preparing legal documents. The judges said in the document that the use of reliable AI tools is not improper in itself, but the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure require attorneys to ensure their filings are accurate. 'The legal profession must be cautious of AI due to its tendency to hallucinate information. While technology continues to evolve, attorneys must verify each source,' the appellate judges said. Here, it said the attorneys 'fell short of their gatekeeping responsibilities as members of the Utah State Bar' when citing fake cases generated by ChatGPT. Richard Bednar and Douglas Durban, representing Matthew Garner, filed a petition asking the appellate court to review a decision of the 3rd District Court. When the attorneys on the other side of the dispute responded, they found the petition cited multiple cases that either didn't exist or were not applicable. In response, those attorneys stated that it appeared the petition could be AI-generated and cited at least one case they could only find by searching ChatGPT. They also stated that the petition contained references that were 'wholly unrelated' to the case. Bednar, who filed and signed the petition, was ordered not only to pay the opposing party's attorneys' fees for the time spent responding to a petition that included AI, but to refund his own client any fees associated with his filing of the petition. He was also ordered to pay $1,000 to "and Justice for all" a Utah nonprofit that works to provide equal access to justice and courts for Utahns. The Court of Appeals stated that it reviewed sanctions in other legal jurisdictions for attorneys citing 'hallucinated authority,' and believes the sanctions are appropriate. A hearing was scheduled for April 22 to give the attorneys the chance to argue why they should not be sanctioned. In a request to amend their petition filed before the hearing, Bednar and Durbano apologized for the errors and offered to pay the other party's attorneys' fees associated with their response. At the hearing, an attorney representing Bednar and Durbano explained that it was a law clerk who used ChatGPT to create the document, not Bednar; however, Bednar mistakenly trusted that someone else had checked the citations. The attorney said Bednar does take responsibility, although he was unaware that ChatGPT was being used until after the opposing attorneys brought it to his attention. He said his clients would voluntarily pay the opposing attorneys' fees to cover their efforts to respond to the petition. In their May 22 ruling, Utah's appellate judges stated that they appreciate the attorneys' acceptance of responsibility, but the lack of care is still an abuse of the justice system and caused harm. The opinion noted that other attorneys had to spend extra resources to research and judges were required to address this issue instead of other pending cases. The opinion further states that opposing counsel and Utah's courts cannot be responsible for independently verifying the validity of each citation. 'This court takes the submission of fake precedent seriously,' it said. 'Our system of justice must be able to rely on attorneys complying with their duty.' The case that included the first instance of AI use in Utah courts is a contract case filed by Matthew Garner against Kadince, a software company in North Ogden. He was a shareholder and employee at the company beginning in January 2016, when he was named chief experience officer. In his complaint, Garner claims that in December 2019, when he owned 30% of the company's shares, he was told that he would have to relinquish the majority of his shares or his employment would be terminated. He did relinquish the shares but later realized the employees who had threatened him were breaching his employment agreement by threatening to end his employment without giving him three formal written warnings, according to the complaint. He filed the lawsuit in February 2020. Kadince denied Garner's claims, asked for his lawsuit to be dismissed and claimed that he breached his contract with them by filing the lawsuit. Ultimately, the appellate judges denied both Garner's petition for appeal of a discovery issue and attorney fees order — the petition that included inaccurate citations — and his attorneys' request to allow them to file a new petition. The case will continue as if the appeal had not been filed.
