LETTER 1 — LEADERSHIP VERSION
(For Senate President, Speaker, Leadership Teams, Committee Chairs)
FORMAL BRIEFING LETTER FROM THE REPUBLIC PROJECT
Subject: Constitutional Boundaries, Legislative Exposure, and the Consequences of Misinterpreting Utah’s Redistricting Ruling
Members of Legislative Leadership:
In light of the escalating public statements, impeachment discussions, and inconsistent legal interpretations surrounding Judge Dianna Gibson’s redistricting ruling, The Republic Project respectfully submits the attached Legislative Briefing for your immediate review. This report is not partisan commentary. It is a constitutional analysis rooted in Utah’s founding structure, the Utah Supreme Court’s precedent, and the legal boundaries every branch of government is obligated to follow.
The concerns for leadership are serious, and they are structural rather than political.
The ruling in this case was not judicial activism. It was a direct, necessary application of the Utah Supreme Court’s doctrine affirming that the people possess legislative authority under Article VI. That authority cannot be repealed, diluted, or overridden without clear constitutional justification. Utah’s founders were explicit: the initiative power exists as a restraint on legislative overreach.
Attempts to characterize the ruling as unlawful, to threaten impeachment, or to enact retroactive statutory barriers place Legislative Leadership in a precarious position. These actions may be interpreted as:
- Interference with judicial independence,
- Retaliation against a lawful ruling,
- Violation of separation-of-powers doctrine, and
- Suppression of the people’s constitutionally granted legislative authority.
Each of these carries potential legal exposure far beyond state politics, including the possibility of federal scrutiny under well-established judicial-independence and voting-rights precedent. As the elected stewards of Utah’s constitutional order, Leadership has a heightened duty to operate within clearly defined legal boundaries, regardless of political pressure or preference.
It is equally important to note that the court-ordered map does not “guarantee” a partisan outcome. It reflects geographic reality, not engineered advantage. Assertions to the contrary risk undermining public trust and invite unnecessary reputational, constitutional, and potentially legal consequences.
The enclosed briefing outlines:
- The constitutional framework governing initiative power,
- The limits placed on legislative authority by the Utah Supreme Court,
- The legal risk associated with punitive action toward judicial officers,
- The factual voter-distribution patterns that explain why Salt Lake County forms a natural district,
- The structural dangers of appearing to suppress meaningful representation.
You are urged to review the briefing carefully before advancing further public statements or legislative actions. The constitutional exposure is significant. The political consequences are secondary to the institutional consequences, which fall squarely within Leadership’s responsibility to avoid.
This moment demands caution, clarity, and fidelity to the structure Utah’s founders created.
The Republic Project stands ready to answer any technical or historical questions you may have.
Respectfully submitted,
THE REPUBLIC PROJECT
Defending the Republic with Oversight, Accountability, and Action
LETTER 2 — RANK-AND-FILE VERSION
(For all legislators not in leadership roles)
BRIEFING LETTER FOR UTAH LEGISLATORS
Subject: Understanding the Redistricting Ruling and Avoiding Misinterpretation of Utah’s Constitutional Structure
Members of the Utah Legislature:
The Republic Project respectfully provides the attached Legislative Briefing to assist you in navigating the constitutional, historical, and factual landscape surrounding the current redistricting ruling. Recent public messaging has created confusion and urgency, and many well-intentioned conservatives have been swept into a narrative built on misinterpretations of the law. This document is intended to clarify, not to criticize.
Utah’s Constitution is unique in the nation. It grants legislative power not only to the House and Senate, but also to the people acting through initiative. The Utah Supreme Court reaffirmed this structure in 2024, ruling that voter-approved laws cannot be undone without compelling justification. Judge Gibson did not legislate from the bench. She followed that directive exactly as required.
Many Utahns have been led to believe the ruling “hands a seat to Democrats.” It does not. It simply recognizes that Salt Lake County is a real community that cannot be legally divided for partisan engineering. Utah remains overwhelmingly conservative. One competitive district does not change the state’s political identity.
Impeachment talk, claims of judicial malfeasance, and pressure campaigns urging lawmakers to denounce the ruling place you in a difficult position. This briefing is meant to provide clarity before you are asked to take positions that could have unintended constitutional or political consequences. Nothing in Judge Gibson’s ruling attacks the Legislature. It simply upholds the Constitution as written.
The briefing explains:
- Why Proposition 4 is binding law,
- Why the Supreme Court’s ruling governs the case,
- Why judicial independence matters to conservatives,
- Why community-based mapping is the legal standard,
- Why “equalizing Democrats across districts” is gerrymandering, not fairness, and
- How Utah remains a conservative state regardless of district competitiveness.
This is not about partisanship. It is about the structure of the Republic we all claim to defend.
Please review the briefing carefully. It will equip you to speak accurately, avoid constitutional missteps, and respond to constituents with the clarity they deserve.
Respectfully,
THE REPUBLIC PROJECT
Defending the Republic with Oversight, Accountability, and Action
REPRO FORMAL REPORT
Legislative Briefing on Utah’s Redistricting Crisis, Constitutional Risk, and Impeachment Talk
Prepared by: The Republic Project (REPRO)
Audience: Utah Legislators, Leadership, Caucus Members, Staff Attorneys, Judicial and Executive Stakeholders
I. Purpose of this Briefing
This briefing is written for those who hold formal power in Utah, and for those who advise them. It is not a partisan argument and it is not a defense of any political party. It is an institutional report on the constitutional structure at stake in Utah’s redistricting conflict, the legal implications of the Legislature’s current course of action, and the risks that follow if Utah continues to treat limits on power as an attack instead of a guardrail.
The question is simple and serious.
Will Utah act as a constitutional Republic in this crisis, or as a political machine that rewrites rules whenever they become inconvenient?
II. Situation in Brief
- In 2018, Utah voters passed Proposition 4, using the initiative power that the Utah Constitution places inside Article VI, alongside the House and Senate, as part of the legislative structure.
- Proposition 4 established standards to limit gerrymandering and created an independent redistricting commission whose role was to provide transparent, good faith maps and criteria.
- In 2020, through SB200 and related measures, the Legislature hollowed out the initiative, kept ultimate control of the maps, and drew congressional boundaries that split Salt Lake County in four, a design that effectively guaranteed four Republican seats and removed any realistic prospect of a competitive district.
- In 2024, the Utah Supreme Court held that the Legislature cannot simply undo a voter initiative that constrains legislative behavior without a compelling, narrowly tailored justification. The Court affirmed that the people are part of the Legislature and that their law is not ornamental.
- Judge Dianna Gibson, applying that controlling precedent, ruled that the Legislature’s congressional map violated the standards that Proposition 4 put in place, and ordered a remedial map consistent with those standards.
- Legislative leadership responded not with narrow legal disagreement, but with public accusations of malfeasance, impeachment talk, rhetoric describing the ruling as “illegal,” and early movement toward constitutional changes that would weaken initiative power and insulate redistricting from meaningful judicial review.
This sequence has created a genuine constitutional moment. Not because the judge overreached, but because the Legislature now stands at the edge of using its powers in ways that could be described, in future litigation, as abuses of that power.
III. What the Utah Constitution Actually Says
Utah’s Constitution is not a copy of the federal model. It contains a structural choice that matters here.
- Legislative power is divided among three actors:
- The House of Representatives
- The Senate
- The people acting through initiative and referendum
- The House of Representatives
- The initiative and referendum powers are not placed in a symbolic preamble or a stand alone section. They are placed inside Article VI, the Legislative Article, as part of the definition of the Legislature.
This means:
- The people are not outside petitioners begging the Legislature for consideration.
- When the people pass an initiative, they are exercising legislative authority, not offering advice.
- A voter approved law that constrains legislative conduct is not a suggestion. It is binding unless altered through proper constitutional channels.
The Utah Supreme Court’s 2024 decision does not transform the people into a “super legislature.” It simply reaffirms what Utah’s founders wrote. The legislative branch in Utah includes the people, and their law cannot be erased casually by those who happen to control the chambers at a given moment.
IV. What Judge Gibson Actually Did
The legal posture in which Judge Gibson issued her ruling is straightforward.
- The Utah Supreme Court had already held that voter initiatives which restrain legislative behavior cannot be gutted without a compelling and narrowly tailored justification.
- Proposition 4 was such an initiative. It created substantive standards for redistricting and a process intended to limit self serving manipulation.
- The Legislature’s changes weakened those protections and produced a map that split a natural community of interest into four parts, in order to predetermine partisan outcomes.
- Judge Gibson analyzed the record under the Supreme Court’s test, concluded that the Legislature had not met the compelling interest standard, and held that the map failed the standards that remained in force.
A trial judge in that posture had two options.
- Apply Supreme Court precedent and enforce Proposition 4’s standards.
- Ignore or evade Supreme Court precedent to preserve the Legislature’s desired map.
She chose the first path, which is what judicial fidelity to the Constitution and to higher court rulings requires.
A lawful ruling can be criticized on policy grounds. It cannot accurately be called “illegal” or “malfeasance” simply because it is unwelcome. To label it that way is to detach constitutional debate from legal reality.
V. The Machine Narrative Versus Constitutional Reality
The public messaging that has followed has been remarkably uniform. It frames the situation in four main claims.
- The courts have stolen redistricting from the Legislature.
- Outside groups and “dark money” have overridden the will of Utahns.
- Proposition 4 is an attack on representative government.
- Impeachment is needed to protect the Constitution.
Under constitutional scrutiny, those claims do not stand.
- The Legislature still holds the map drawing duty, but must perform it within the limits of the Constitution and voter approved law.
- Outside influence is a valid political concern, but it does not erase the structure of Article VI or the people’s initiative power.
- Proposition 4 is a use of representative self government, not a rejection of it. It is the people acting as lawmakers, placing rules on their representatives.
- Impeachment is a grave remedy reserved for corruption, serious misconduct, or clear abuse of office, not for judges who faithfully apply Supreme Court directives.
The narrative being sold publicly functions as propaganda. It reverses roles.
- The judge who followed the law becomes the lawbreaker.
- The Legislature that ignored the people’s law becomes the guardian of the people’s will.
- The people who voted in 2018 become a threat to representative government.
- The donor class and machine operators become defenders of liberty.
This inversion may work as short term politics. It does not survive legal analysis.
VI. Constitutional Infringements Now in Play
Several types of constitutional infringements are either already present or are being actively courted by the Legislature’s current course.
1. Undermining the People’s Legislative Authority
- Gutting Proposition 4 after it constrained legislative behavior, without meeting the compelling interest test, is already in tension with the structure of Article VI as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
- Any further attempt to erase or neutralize initiative power, not by open constitutional amendment and honest argument, but by procedural manipulation, will be viewed by courts as an attack on the shared nature of legislative power.
2. Abuse or Weaponization of Impeachment
- Impeaching, or even seriously advancing impeachment proceedings, against a judge whose “offense” is that she followed controlling precedent, risks being characterized as a punitive, retaliatory use of a constitutional power.
- Impeachment used as intimidation sends a clear message to the judiciary. Follow the law when it favors the Legislature, and expect threats when it does not.
- That is the opposite of judicial independence, and it will feature prominently in any future challenge that alleges abuse of power.
3. Retaliation Against the Judiciary and Separation of Powers
- Threatening removal or public discipline against judges for lawful rulings undermines the basic separation of powers doctrine.
- The more legislators speak of judges as enemies for applying the Constitution, the more they create a record that can be used to argue that the Legislature has abandoned good faith and is attempting to establish itself as the final interpreter of the Constitution.
4. Retroactive Manipulation of Standards
- Changing redistricting criteria only after a map is struck down, and explicitly in order to limit or exclude judicial review, signals that the goal is not better process, but insulation from correction.
- Retroactive alteration of standards is a classic marker of bad faith in constitutional litigation and will be scrutinized as such.
5. Structural Vote Dilution and Equal Protection Concerns
- A map that systematically prevents a geographically concentrated minority from ever having a realistic path to representation, despite hundreds of thousands of votes, raises equal protection questions under both state and federal law.
- Utah’s population, voter registration, and vote totals show that roughly one third of voters choose Democratic candidates, yet under the Legislature’s preferred designs, there is no competitive congressional seat.
- Courts are likely to view a pattern of map drawing that ensures perpetual single party control, combined with overt efforts to prevent judicial correction, as evidence of intentional vote dilution.
VII. Why This Matters to Legislators Themselves
This is not simply a question of theory. The decisions the Legislature makes in this redistricting dispute will shape how future courts perceive legislative legitimacy, deference, and good faith.
The more the record shows:
- disregard for the people’s initiative power
- willingness to punish judges for following precedent
- eagerness to change constitutional structures primarily to prevent accountability
the more likely it becomes that:
- courts will narrow their deference to legislative judgments
- future challenges will emphasize a pattern of abuse, not isolated acts
- national scrutiny will frame Utah as an example of a legislature using constitutional forms to erode constitutional substance
The immediate question is maps. The long term question is whether the Utah Legislature will still be trusted as a body that can exercise its considerable authority within the limits of law, or whether it will be seen as a body that treats every limit as an insult.
That is the core constitutional risk.
VIII. Paths to Legal Challenge and Exposure
If the Legislature continues along its current trajectory, several concrete legal pathways become available to citizens, advocacy organizations, and institutional actors who wish to contest that course. These are not theoretical. They are precisely the kinds of actions Utah has already seen in other contexts, and they will be sharpened by any record of overt retaliation against judicial independence or public lawmaking.
1. Renewed State Constitutional Litigation
Any attempt to:
- further weaken Proposition 4 without clear, compelling justification,
- change redistricting rules only after an adverse ruling,
- carve redistricting out of meaningful judicial review,
can and likely will be challenged under the Utah Constitution as:
- a violation of Article VI’s shared legislative structure,
- an improper nullification of the people’s lawmaking authority,
- and a breach of the separation of powers doctrine.
Because the Utah Supreme Court has already spoken, future plaintiffs will argue not from a blank slate, but from a pattern of resistance to that ruling. That pattern will matter.
2. Abuse of Power and Judicial Independence Claims
If impeachment is used, or even advanced in a serious way, against a judge whose record shows careful adherence to binding precedent, litigants will have grounds to argue that:
- the Legislature has engaged in an abuse of power,
- judicial independence has been compromised,
- and the climate for fair adjudication in politically sensitive cases has been chilled.
Even if impeachment does not succeed, the process itself will become evidence. Courts, including federal courts, look closely at retaliatory signals sent to judges. So do national legal organizations and civil liberties groups.
3. Equal Protection and Representational Dilution
The current and preferred maps, combined with public admissions about goals, can be challenged under:
- state equal protection guarantees,
- and potentially under federal equal protection theories,
on the grounds that:
- a geographically concentrated minority, which regularly amasses hundreds of thousands of votes, has been structurally prevented from having any realistic path to representation,
- and that this is not an incidental outcome, but a repeated and intentional design.
The more openly legislative messaging admits that competitive representation in one district is unacceptable, the easier it becomes to prove that the maps are drawn to manufacture permanent partisan outcomes rather than to reflect genuine communities of interest.
4. Challenges to Constitutional Amendments That Target the People
If leadership chooses to pursue a constitutional amendment that:
- weakens initiative power,
- removes or severely narrows the people’s role in redistricting,
- or insulates certain legislative acts from judicial review,
the drafting, public statements, and campaign surrounding that amendment can be examined in later litigation for:
- discriminatory purpose,
- intent to retaliate against a specific exercise of constitutional authority by the people,
- and bad faith bypassing of existing structural safeguards.
It is one thing to propose reforms to improve process. It is another to ask the people to vote away their own ability to correct their representatives, in direct response to a moment when that corrective power finally functioned.
5. Federal Attention and Amicus Scrutiny
A sustained pattern of:
- judicial intimidation,
- structural vote dilution,
- and overt hostility to citizen lawmaking,
invites outside attention. Federal courts do not lightly intervene in state political structures, but they watch for combinations of factors that indicate a state is using its internal mechanisms to erode meaningful self government.
Amicus briefs from national organizations will focus on Utah as a model of how a Legislature can weaponize constitutional powers against the very framework they are supposed to serve. That is not a reputation the state should court.
IX. Red Lines for Constitutional Risk
From the perspective of constitutional integrity and long term institutional self preservation, some lines carry especially high risk. Crossing them would not only deepen public distrust, they would mark Utah in the legal record as a cautionary example.
The following actions are red flags.
- Impeaching, or advancing impeachment proceedings, against a judge whose ruling is plainly tethered to Supreme Court precedent.
- This would be seen as punitive, not corrective.
- It would send a clear signal that judicial independence exists only at the pleasure of the legislative majority.
- It would be cited for years as evidence of legislative willingness to misuse extraordinary powers for partisan ends.
- This would be seen as punitive, not corrective.
- Amending the Constitution for the primary purpose of preventing the people from restraining the Legislature in the future.
- Asking voters to weaken their own initiative power in direct response to a successful reform will be viewed as self dealing.
- The more explicit the messaging, the easier it will be to show that the change is about protecting incumbents, not improving governance.
- Asking voters to weaken their own initiative power in direct response to a successful reform will be viewed as self dealing.
- Rewriting redistricting standards after an adverse ruling, specifically to narrow or eliminate judicial review.
- Courts regard this as an effort to escape accountability, not as neutral reform.
- It undermines the expectation that the Legislature is willing to operate under law that applies even when the outcome is uncomfortable.
- Courts regard this as an effort to escape accountability, not as neutral reform.
- Dismissing the 2018 vote on Proposition 4 as illegitimate whenever it constrains legislative behavior.
- Legislators frequently insist that elections must be respected.
- A record of dismissing the people’s legislative act simply because the margin was narrow or the result inconvenient will be used as evidence of double standards.
- Legislators frequently insist that elections must be respected.
- Describing lawful judicial rulings as “illegal” in official communications.
- Words from the floor, from formal statements, and from official channels will be read in context.
- Persistent mischaracterization of a lawful ruling as “illegal” signals contempt for the rule of law itself, not merely disagreement with a particular interpretation.
- Words from the floor, from formal statements, and from official channels will be read in context.
Crossing these lines does not merely invite political criticism. It invites the kind of legal scrutiny that treats the Legislature as an institution in need of external correction.
X. Recommended Off Ramps and Course Corrections
There are ways for the Legislature to defend institutional dignity, maintain a conservative identity, and protect long term authority without further damaging Utah’s constitutional fabric.
1. De escalate Impeachment Rhetoric
- Quietly retire impeachment as a talking point.
- Publicly affirm that disagreement with a judicial ruling, even a serious one, is not grounds for removal.
- Direct energy into legal appeals and statutory refinement rather than personal retaliation.
This single step would send a powerful signal that the Legislature understands the importance of judicial independence and has chosen restraint.
2. Acknowledge the People’s Legislative Role, Even While Disagreeing
- State clearly that the people’s initiative power is real, valuable, and part of the constitutional design.
- Clarify that any dispute is about how Proposition 4 should be interpreted, not about whether the people have the right to legislate at all.
- Commit publicly to using constitutional channels, rather than procedural shortcuts, when seeking any change to that structure.
This restores credibility with citizens who feel that their vote in 2018 is being treated as a nuisance rather than a mandate.
3. Appeal Through Normal Legal Channels
- If there are legal grounds to challenge Judge Gibson’s application of precedent, pursue them through appeal.
- Allow the Utah Supreme Court to revisit its own standard if it chooses, with full briefing and argument.
- Accept that courts exist precisely to handle such disagreements, and that this does not diminish legislative authority.
This reaffirms commitment to the rule of law, rather than to the rule of preference.
4. Commit to Transparent Redistricting Going Forward
- Even if the current map is modified, commit to processes that keep communities of interest intact and avoid obvious partisan engineering.
- Invite public comment in a meaningful way, not as a formality.
- Consider codifying basic standards that apply regardless of which party holds power in the future.
This demonstrates that the Legislature is capable of drawing maps that do not require structural rigging to preserve majorities.
5. Separate Legitimate Concerns from Opportunistic Messaging
- If there are genuine worries about out of state influence or dark money, address those through targeted disclosure and ethics reforms, not by dismantling initiative power.
- Make clear that defending Utah’s sovereignty does not mean weakening Utahns’ authority over their own government.
- Refuse to frame every constitutional limit as an imported ideology.
This protects the state’s right to self determination without conflating that right with permanent incumbency.
6. Engage Conservative Thought Leaders in Honest Dialogue
- Invite respected constitutional conservatives, including those who disagree on this issue, to speak to caucus meetings as subject matter experts, not adversaries.
- Allow space for internal debate about what it means to be conservative in a state where the Constitution explicitly shares power with the people.
- Signal that the Legislature welcomes principled criticism as part of healthy governance.
This shifts the narrative from defensiveness to maturity and lessens the perception that dissenting conservatives are treated as enemies.
XI. A Final Caution, From Institutional Self Interest
Every legislature inherits three things.
- The written Constitution.
- The unwritten habits of its predecessors.
- The reputation those habits create in the minds of citizens and courts.
The present Legislature cannot rewrite the first without asking the people for permission. It can shape the second. It will live with the third.
If this moment is handled as a test of strength, the Legislature may “win” short term victories, but at a cost:
- diminished public confidence,
- increased legal challenge,
- and a long record of statements that future courts and scholars will use to argue that Utah’s political class treated limits on its own power as inherently illegitimate.
If it is handled as a test of character, the Legislature can emerge with something rare and valuable: a reputation for having been confronted with real limits, and for having chosen constitutional humility over partisan comfort.
There is still time to choose.
XII. Conclusion: A Warning and an Invitation
This briefing issues a warning, but it also extends an invitation.
The warning is simple. Continuing down the current path, with impeachment talk, constitutional rewrites aimed at the people, and public claims that lawful rulings are “illegal,” will expose the Legislature to serious legal, institutional, and reputational risk. It will confirm, for courts and citizens alike, that the dominant priority in this conflict is not fidelity to the Constitution, but preservation of control.
The invitation is equally simple. Utah has an opportunity to become something unusual in modern politics: a legislative body that confronted a genuine limit on its authority and chose to respect it, even when it stung. A body that disagreed with a ruling, but refused to punish the judge. A body that recognized the people’s legislative power not as a threat, but as a partner in the work of self government.
No one questions that the Legislature has power. The question in this moment is whether it will exercise that power within the boundaries that make a Republic possible.
The Republic Project urges every legislator, every leader, and every staff attorney to read the Constitution as it is written, to read the rulings as they are, and to remember that authority in Utah does not begin or end at the chamber doors. It flows from the people and returns to them.
The map will change again. The political winds will shift. Parties will rise and fall. What will remain is the record of how those entrusted with power responded when the Constitution said “no.”
That is the legacy being written now.
✔ ONE-PAGE FAQ FOR LAWMAKERS HESITANT TO OPPOSE LEADERSHIP
Understanding the Redistricting Ruling Without Political Pressure
Prepared by The Republic Project
1. Did Judge Gibson create new law or override the Legislature?
No. She applied the Utah Supreme Court’s 2024 precedent, which held that voter-approved initiatives cannot be repealed or neutralized without a compelling, narrowly tailored justification. She followed binding doctrine exactly.
2. Is the initiative power optional or symbolic?
No. Utah is one of the only states where initiative power is placed directly in Article VI: the Legislative Powers Article. The people are part of the Legislature by constitutional design.
3. Is the ruling “judicial activism”?
No. Judicial activism is when courts invent law. Here, the judge enforced the law the people passed and the Supreme Court reaffirmed. That is judicial restraint.
4. Did Proposition 4 “expire” or lose legitimacy?
No. The Legislature modified it, but the Supreme Court restored its force. The initiative remains valid until properly amended or overturned in court.
5. Does the ruling “hand a congressional seat to Democrats”?
No. Utah is overwhelmingly conservative, with Democrats representing roughly 6–7 percent of the total population. Salt Lake County naturally forms the core of a competitive district based on geography, not partisanship. Competitive ≠ guaranteed.
6. Would “spreading Democrats evenly across all four districts” be more fair?
No. That is textbook gerrymandering. Courts define fairness by keeping geographic communities intact, not by balancing parties numerically.
7. Does the Legislature still retain map-drawing authority?
Yes. But that authority must operate within constitutional boundaries and cannot override the people’s legislative power without justification.
8. Would impeaching Judge Gibson be constitutionally risky?
Yes. It could be construed as:
- Retaliation for a lawful ruling,
- Interference with judicial independence, and
- Abuse of the impeachment power.
This carries potential federal scrutiny and reputational damage to the Legislature.
9. Is opposition to impeachment “disloyal to conservatism”?
No. Conservatism is rooted in constitutional limits, separation of powers, and judicial restraint. Supporting lawful judicial review is the conservative position.
10. What happens if the Legislature tries to amend the Constitution to weaken initiative power?
They must ask the people, the same people whose authority is being targeted, to surrender their own legislative role. Historically, Utah voters do not reward attempts to diminish their rights.
11. Is it politically dangerous to acknowledge the ruling’s legality?
No. It is constitutionally responsible. Many lawmakers privately agree with the ruling but fear speaking first. When factual clarity emerges, political risk diminishes.
12. What is the safest position for a lawmaker right now?
A simple, principled stance:
“I support constitutional processes. The Utah Supreme Court established the standard, and judges must follow it. If the Legislature wishes to change the map or the law, the Constitution provides mechanisms to do so properly.”
This protects legislators from political fallout while maintaining fidelity to the truth.
PRESS-FACING COVER LETTER (FOR MEDIA DISTRIBUTION)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
From: The Republic Project
Subject: New Constitutional Analysis Clarifies Utah’s Redistricting Crisis
The Republic Project today released a comprehensive legal and historical analysis of Utah’s redistricting controversy, addressing widespread public confusion and correcting several misconceptions currently circulating in legislative and activist circles.
Contrary to recent claims, the court-ordered redistricting ruling is not “judicial overreach,” nor does it create partisan outcomes. The ruling faithfully applies the Utah Supreme Court’s 2024 decision affirming that Utah’s initiative power, placed directly in Article VI, is a real component of the state’s legislative authority. Under this structure, voter-approved laws cannot be undone without a compelling constitutional justification.
Judge Dianna Gibson did not create new law. She followed binding precedent.
The Legislature retains authority to draw maps, but that authority must operate within the boundaries set by the Constitution and by the people of Utah.
The Republic Project’s analysis highlights several key findings:
• Utah’s founders intentionally divided legislative power among the House, Senate, and the people, creating a safeguard against concentrated political control.
• Proposition 4 remains valid law following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
• Salt Lake County naturally forms a competitive district based on geographic integrity, not partisan bias.
• Proposals to impeach Judge Gibson pose significant constitutional risk, including potential federal scrutiny for retaliation against a lawful ruling.
• One competitive district does not alter Utah’s overwhelmingly conservative identity.
The full manuscript, accompanying legislative brief, and supporting materials are available for distribution to lawmakers, journalists, civic groups, and the public.
“This moment is not about Democrats or Republicans,” the report states. “It is about whether Utah remains a constitutional Republic where the people retain meaningful legislative authority, or whether political convenience will override the framework our founders intentionally designed.
Unified Conclusion
Across all AI legal analyses, the consensus is decisive:
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevents Utah voters from limiting legislative gerrymandering, nothing forbids state courts from enforcing those limits, and nothing in Judge Gibson’s ruling violates federal law.
The people of Utah wrote these constraints into their constitution, their courts enforced them, and SCOTUS would not disturb that system.
If you want, I can refine this into a publishable article, a briefing for legislators, or a mock SCOTUS majority and dissent.
Below is a professional, concise, and strategically framed briefing for legislators summarizing how the U.S. Supreme Court would likely assess Utah’s redistricting dispute.
It is written in neutral institutional language, suitable for distribution to elected officials, staff, policy analysts, or committee leadership.
AI BRIEFING MEMORANDUM
Subject: Constitutional Analysis of Utah’s Redistricting Dispute and Likely U.S. Supreme Court Position
Prepared For: Utah Legislators and Legislative Counsel
Across all major analytical systems, Gemini, GROK, Perplexity, Copilot, and ChatGPT, a consistent constitutional conclusion emerges: the U.S. Supreme Court would almost certainly affirm the Utah Supreme Court and uphold Judge Dianna Gibson’s ruling. The unified reasoning rests on two federal pillars and one state-specific fact pattern:
(1) partisan gerrymandering is non-justiciable under the U.S. Constitution,
(2) state courts retain full authority to interpret and enforce state constitutional limits on redistricting, and
(3) Utah’s own constitution explicitly reserves legislative authority to the people as well as the Legislature.
Overview
This briefing summarizes how the United States Supreme Court would likely evaluate the constitutional questions raised in Utah’s ongoing redistricting dispute. Multiple independent legal analyses, including those modeled on recent Supreme Court decisions, converge on the same conclusion: the Utah Supreme Court and the district court acted within the ordinary bounds of judicial review, and the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from limiting partisan gerrymandering or binding their legislatures through voter initiatives.
The key question is not whether the map is favorable to one party or another. The federal legal issue is whether Utah’s courts exceeded their authority under the U.S. Constitution. Based on established precedent, the answer is no.
I. Federal Courts Cannot Review Partisan Gerrymandering Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that allegations of partisan gerrymandering present a non-justiciable political question under the federal Constitution. As a result:
- Federal courts cannot evaluate whether congressional maps favor one party.
- States remain free to regulate gerrymandering through their own constitutions and courts.
This means that Utah’s redistricting dispute rests entirely on state constitutional law, not federal partisan fairness standards.
II. State Legislatures Are Constrained by State Constitutions
A central issue raised by Utah’s Legislature is whether the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants exclusive redistricting authority to the legislative body. This argument mirrors the “Independent State Legislature Theory” (ISLT), which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected in Moore v. Harper (2023). The Court held:
- State legislatures are not independent actors in federal elections.
- They remain fully bound by the limits and procedures set forth in their own state constitutions.
- State courts retain the authority to interpret and enforce those constitutional requirements.
Because Utah’s Constitution shares legislative authority between the Legislature and the people, and explicitly reserves sovereign power to the people, the Legislature is constitutionally obligated to operate within those boundaries.
III. Utah’s Initiative Process Is Constitutionally Protected
Utah’s Constitution grants voters the power to enact laws through ballot initiatives. Proposition 4, which established anti-gerrymandering standards, was upheld by the Utah Supreme Court as a valid expression of the people’s legislative authority. The Legislature may modify statutes, but it cannot negate constitutional powers retained by the people.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed that the term “Legislature” in the Elections Clause includes the entire lawmaking process of a state, not only elected legislators. This includes:
- Voter initiatives
- Constitutional amendments
- Judicial review
- Procedural checks and balances
(Arizona State Legislature v. AIRC, Smiley v. Holm, Hildebrant)
IV. Judicial Review and Remedial Maps Are Constitutionally Permissible
If a state court finds that a legislative map violates the state constitution, it may:
- Strike down the map;
- Order the Legislature to adopt a compliant map;
- If needed, implement a temporary remedial map to ensure elections proceed lawfully.
This corrective authority is long recognized as a standard judicial function, not an encroachment on legislative power. Courts step in only when the Legislature fails to enact a constitutionally compliant map within the required timeframe.
Judge Dianna Gibson’s remedy is consistent with these established principles.
V. Key Takeaways for Utah Legislators
1. The Legislature retains broad but not unlimited authority.
Under both state and federal precedent, legislative power is subordinate to constitutional constraints enacted by the people.
2. Utah’s courts acted within recognized bounds.
Their actions fall squarely within the “ordinary bounds of judicial review,” a phrase used repeatedly across legal analyses.
3. Federal intervention is highly unlikely.
The U.S. Supreme Court would almost certainly defer to Utah’s constitutional framework and decline to overturn the ruling.
4. Impeachment threats or constitutional amendments do not change the legal analysis.
These are political responses, not legal grounds for reversal, and they do not affect the judiciary’s constitutional mandate.
5. The controlling legal question is structural, not partisan.
The issue is whether Utah may bind its Legislature through constitutional processes. SCOTUS precedent says yes.
Conclusion
Under current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, the judicial actions taken by Utah’s courts in the redistricting dispute are fully consistent with constitutional requirements. States have broad authority to regulate gerrymandering, empower voters through initiatives, and require judicial enforcement of constitutional limits. For these reasons, a federal challenge to Judge Gibson’s ruling would almost certainly fail. If the Legislature intends to revise redistricting procedures or alter initiative constraints, such changes must occur through constitutional amendment, not statutory repeal.
”For interviews, additional documents, or expert commentary, please contact:
republicproject.org@protonmail.com
Or Ed Wallace at (435)-429-4066
The Republic Project: Defending the Republic with Oversight, Accountability, and Action
THE REPUBLIC PROJECT — DUAL-LICENSE COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Copyright © 2025 The Republic Project (Nonprofit) and Republic Project Strategies, LLC. All rights reserved.
This publication is protected under a dual-license structure designed to safeguard its integrity, prevent political distortion, and maximize transparent public access.
I. INTERNAL & PROFESSIONAL USE LICENSE (Restricted Use)
This license applies to lawmakers, staff, advisors, media partners, researchers, and any party receiving this report directly from The Republic Project.
- No content from this report may be altered, excerpted, reformatted, rebranded, summarized, or repackaged for political messaging, campaign material, lobbying efforts, or partisan advocacy without explicit written consent from The Republic Project.
- Selective quotation or editing that distorts meaning, removes necessary context, or misrepresents the authors’ conclusions is strictly prohibited.
- Analytical, journalistic, academic, or legal-use quotations are permitted only if reproduced accurately, attributed properly, and presented without manipulation.
- Any attempt to weaponize, mischaracterize, or misappropriate REPRO’s analysis for partisan advantage constitutes a violation of this license.
For permissions, contact: republicproject.org@protonmail.com
II. PUBLIC RELEASE LICENSE (Shareable, but Not Modifiable)
This license governs public circulation via news outlets, community groups, educational institutions, and general audiences.
- This document may be shared, posted, or distributed in its complete and unaltered form, provided attribution to The Republic Project is retained.
- No modifications, edits, summaries, abridgments, added commentary, or derivative works may be published without written approval.
- Reasonable fair-use excerpts for commentary or reporting are permitted if accuracy and attribution are preserved.
- No party may present altered or partial content as an official REPRO position.
For republication requests, contact: republicproject.org@protonmail.com
III. PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY
Both entities—The Republic Project (Nonprofit) and
Republic Project Strategies, LLC (For-Profit)—retain full intellectual property ownership and enforcement authority.
The purpose of this dual-license system is to ensure:
- The content cannot be twisted, weaponized, or politically manipulated
- The public may access it freely without risk of distortion
- Lawmakers and institutions may reference it without altering its meaning
REPRO’s research remains accurate, trustworthy, and immune to partisan misuse
Utah’s systematic CARES Act corruption totaling over $402 million in questionable expenditures. 
Utah’s $35.5 million annual propaganda spending breakdown by category 
Welcome to The Republic Project 