In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature overstepped its authority by rewriting a voter-approved ballot initiative from 2018. The initiative had established an independent redistricting process and drew its own congressional maps, which notably divided Salt Lake County into four different congressional districts.

According to the court, the Utah Constitution grants citizens the political power to reshape their government, ensuring that the legislature cannot simply undo any ballot measure that passes. Justice Paige Petersen expressed in the opinion that the exercise of citizens' rights to reform the government through a citizen initiative must be protected from government infringement. This means that government-reform initiatives are constitutionally safeguarded from unrestricted legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement.

Legislative leaders expressed their strong opposition to the ruling, calling it one of the worst outcomes from the Utah Supreme Court. The case has now been sent back to a judge in Utah's 3rd District Court, who will determine whether the legislature violated the will of the people when it passed SB200 in 2020. SB200 effectively gutted significant portions of the previously voter-approved Proposition 4, also known as the Better Boundaries initiative, which aimed to prohibit partisan gerrymandering and impose restrictions on the redistricting process.

For SB200 to survive, attorneys for the legislature will need to demonstrate that the law meets the stringent "strict scrutiny" standard. This means that the state must prove there is a compelling reason for passing the law and that it was done in the narrowest way possible. If the law fails to meet this standard, Petersen wrote that the act enacted by Proposition 4 would become controlling law. Consequently, it is likely that the Congressional Map, if proven true, would not be able to stand.

If SB200 is struck down, the legislature will be required to create new maps that adhere to the ban on partisan gerrymandering and respect county boundaries, as stipulated in the Better Boundaries initiative. Mark Gaber, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center who argued the case before the Utah Supreme Court, believes that such standards make it difficult to split Salt Lake City from its surrounding areas while maintaining compliance.

The repercussions of this ruling extend beyond just redistricting. In 2018, Utah voters approved two additional ballot initiatives, one legalizing medical cannabis and the other expanding Medicaid coverage for low-income Utahns. The legislature also significantly changed those initiatives. While the court did not address these specific initiatives, the ruling indicates that in the future, the legislature will have to grant deference to the will of voters and only make changes that align with the goals of government reform initiatives.

The executive director of Better Boundaries applauded the ruling as a significant victory for representative democracy in Utah. Katie Wright stated that the people of Utah voted for more transparency and accountability, and the Supreme Court affirmed their intentions. On the other hand, legislative leaders expressed concerns that this decision would turn Utah into a state similar to California, where big money and outside interest groups use initiatives to push their own agendas, potentially hindering lawmakers from enacting policies and subjecting them to legal battles.

Governor Spencer Cox, while respecting the court's decision, had previously argued that the legislature possesses the ultimate authority to draw congressional maps and amend legislation passed by initiative. The governor emphasized the importance of protecting against the problems that can arise from pure democracy.

Utah House and Senate Democrats praised the court's decision in separate statements, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution to prevent prolonged uncertainty and preserve the integrity of the democratic election process.

The lawsuit that sparked this dispute was filed in 2022 by the League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, and a group of Salt Lake County voters. They argued that the legislature, by splitting the county into four congressional districts, effectively deprived county residents of a meaningful vote and a voice in Congress. The attorneys for the legislature countered that, aside from rare cases, the courts do not have the authority to second-guess or reject the maps drawn by lawmakers, as the U.S. Constitution grants the legislature broad authority in this matter.

As the case progresses, all eyes are on the judge in Utah's 3rd District Court, who will now determine whether SB200 usurped the will of the people. The outcome could potentially reshape not only the congressional boundaries but also the maps for the Utah House, Senate, and school board, potentially altering the political landscape of the state.