In an unusually pointed ruling issued late Friday, Third District Judge Dianna Gibson gave Republican lawmakers what they wanted—a fast track to appeal her redistricting decisions—but not before scolding them for deliberately bypassing the proper legal channels available months ago.

"With election deadlines imminent, the Legislative Defendants repeatedly stated they intended to appeal but then intentionally elected not to utilize the more appropriate appellate tools available to them," Gibson wrote in her 10-page order.

Gibson granted certification of her August 25 ruling that struck down the legislature's repeal of voter-approved Proposition 4 and permanently blocked the 2021 congressional map. The decision allows lawmakers to immediately appeal to the Utah Supreme Court—something they could have done months ago without needing the judge's permission.

Proposition 4, passed by voters in 2018, established independent redistricting criteria and banned partisan gerrymandering. The Republican-controlled legislature repealed it in 2020, drawing a congressional map that split Salt Lake County four ways, intentionally diluting Democratic voting power.

Missed opportunities

Gibson noted the irony in a footnote: lawmakers filed their motion 29 days after her November 10 ruling—still within the 30-day window to appeal directly to the Utah Supreme Court. They also had 21 days to petition for an interlocutory appeal after both her August 25 and November 10 rulings.

Legislative attorneys claimed they couldn't appeal because the court needed to issue a final judgment first. But Gibson pointed out they had two faster paths that didn't require court permission at all—and chose neither.

When the legislature's legal team explained that appealing earlier "would have resulted in the parties simultaneously briefing likelihood of success review in the appellate courts while conducting remedial proceedings before this Court, thereby unnecessarily complicating the proceedings and wasting judicial and party resources," Gibson wasn't buying it.

"In other words, it would have been a lot of work in both courts," she wrote. "While that may be true, this statement reveals that the Legislative Defendants were aware of these avenues to an immediate appeal but chose not to use them."

What Gibson's decision does (and doesn't) do

Lawyers for the legislature argued the case was effectively over since Gibson had already granted the relief plaintiffs requested, asking her to declare the entire case finished.

Gibson refused. More than 20 claims remain unresolved in the litigation, including new challenges added in November challenging the legislature's remedial map.

She reluctantly agreed to certify specific portions of her August ruling as final: that lawmakers unconstitutionally repealed Proposition 4, that the 2021 congressional map is permanently blocked, and that Prop 4 is the law in Utah.

"Quite literally – this Court is between the proverbial rock and a hard spot," Gibson wrote. "This entire case is not 'final.' Count V is not final. But the Court agrees that the important legal issues decided by this Court... should be reviewed by the Utah Supreme Court as quickly as possible."

Despite her criticism of the legislature's tactics, Gibson explained why immediate Supreme Court review serves the public interest.

"Until there is a final decision on these legal issues from our Supreme Court, there will be a cloud on Utah's congressional elections and an open question regarding the power of the Legislature and the power of the people," she wrote.

"These legal questions should be put to rest as soon as possible," Gibson wrote. "There is no just reason to delay the Utah Supreme Court's review... There is no reason to delay bringing some finality on these important issues to the people of Utah."

In her conclusion, Gibson did not mince words about the legislature's approach.

"This was not an easy call. The Legislative Defendants had a direct, non-discretionary right to immediately and directly appeal to the Utah Supreme Court... They chose not to appeal. No legitimate reason was offered for failing to appeal. Now, they seek a third imperfect avenue requesting the Court certify its August 25, 2025 Ruling and Order as final, to allow them to appeal under Utah law."

She added a pointed note to the Utah Supreme Court, essentially saying she did her best under unusual circumstances: "The Court leaves it to the Utah Supreme Court to determine if, as a matter of law, this suffices to establish appellate jurisdiction."

What happens next

Gibson ordered the legislature to draft a formal final judgment consistent with her ruling. Once filed, lawmakers can appeal to the Utah Supreme Court.

That appeal will determine not only the fate of Utah's congressional map but also whether voter ballot initiatives can survive legislative opposition.

In the meantime, the map currently in effect is one proposed by plaintiffs that creates a Democratic-leaning district in Salt Lake County. Gibson ordered that map used in November after finding that the legislature's remedial map—passed during an October special session—still violated Proposition 4's anti-gerrymandering criteria.

It remains unclear how lawmakers plan to respond to Gibson's latest ruling beyond appealing to the Supreme Court.