Utah Gov. Spencer Cox says the delayed release of a major redistricting ruling has significantly restricted the Legislature’s ability to file a proper appeal.
Although he disagrees strongly with the court’s judgment, Cox emphasized that the timing of the decision, more than the ruling itself, has created an unfair situation for lawmakers hoping to challenge it.
Governor Cox Pushes Back on Court’s Logic
Gov. Cox stated that he “strongly disagrees” with the reasoning behind the case, calling the ruling a mistake.
However, he stressed that the bigger issue was how late the ruling was released, which he believes made it nearly impossible for the appeals process to unfold properly.
He told the Deseret News that the combination of the decision and its timing “makes it difficult for justice to take its full course.”
Judge Gibson’s Ruling: What Happened?
Map Rejected in Favor of Nonprofit Proposal
On Nov. 10, 3rd District Court Judge Dianna Gibson struck down the congressional map drawn by state lawmakers.
She instead approved a map crafted by nonprofit organizations, which established a Democratic-leaning district centered in northern Salt Lake County.
Why Did She Make That Choice?
Judge Gibson said the nonprofit map aligned more closely with Proposition 4, a 2018 voter-approved measure that outlined anti-gerrymandering standards aimed at ensuring fairer political boundaries.
Republican officials had revised Utah’s House districts under the judge’s guidance, aiming to increase competitiveness.
They were frustrated when Gibson chose a map they felt was highly uncompetitive, especially since the decision came from an unelected judge.
The Timing Controversy
When Was the Decision Released?
The ruling arrived less than 20 minutes before midnight on Nov. 10 — the firm deadline set by Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson to allow enough time to prepare Utah’s election systems before candidate filings open in January.
Why Lawmakers Are Upset
House Speaker Mike Schultz said that the extremely late timing, combined with months of delays, created an “astronomical timeline” that made the usual appeal process impossible.
He said the Legislature could attempt an emergency appeal, but this approach would prevent the Utah Supreme Court from fully reviewing the case based on its legal merits.
Schultz argued that the judge’s timing effectively denied lawmakers a fair chance to appeal:
“She structured this in a way that takes away the voice of the people and removes our ability to appeal normally.”
Reactions to Criticism of the Court
Concerns Over Judicial Safety
Some groups say the GOP’s harsh rhetoric could undermine public trust in the judiciary. Court administrators have reported an increase in threats targeting court staff, warning that this endangers the justice system itself.
Support for Judge Gibson’s Approach
Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah and a plaintiff in the case, said redistricting rulings are inherently complex and require careful review.
She praised Gibson for taking the necessary time to understand the issues, saying no one should want a rushed, poorly supported ruling.
Did Judge Gibson Overstep?
Gov. Cox, who previously clerked for a federal judge, believes that if Gibson had acted sooner, she could have followed the typical process under Proposition 4 — which includes the option of asking lawmakers to redraw maps again if needed.
Some lawmakers claim Gibson intentionally waited until the last moment, suggesting she exceeded her authority by taking control of the legislative mapping process. A few have even raised the possibility of impeachment, though Cox has not endorsed that idea.
However, Cox said that in major political or legal cases, judges typically issue rulings early enough to allow for a thorough appeals process — something he feels did not happen here.
The debate over Utah’s redistricting decision has become as much about timing as it is about policy. While Gov. Spencer Cox and GOP leaders firmly disagree with Judge Gibson’s ruling, they argue that the last-minute delivery left them unable to pursue a fair appeal.
Supporters of the decision say the court acted carefully and responsibly, but critics maintain that the delays undermined public trust and the legal process. As Utah moves toward the 2025 election cycle, the long-term impacts of this ruling — and the tensions surrounding it — will continue to shape the state’s political landscape.
