The Republican-led campaign to repeal Utah’s anti-gerrymandering law won’t make November’s ballot. The proposed ballot initiative sponsored by Utahns for Representative Government (UFRG) initially cleared the bar, but a sustained signature removal push dropped the effort below the required number of signatures in one Senate district, according to new numbers released Thursday morning.
Since voters approved Proposition 4 in 2018, Utah GOP leaders have repeatedly tried, and failed, to kill the law and its independent redistricting commission.
In 2020, lawmakers passed SB200 to repeal and replace Prop. 4, downgrading the commission to an advisory role. After a coalition of organizations sued, the Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that lawmakers overstepped their constitutional authority. In 2025, Judge Dianna Gibson reinstated Prop. 4 and tossed the Legislature’s 2021 congressional map.
Late last year, GOP leaders floated the idea of an indirect initiative to repeal Prop. 4, which allows voters to force the legislature to vote on a proposal if they collect enough signatures. They dropped it after Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson warned using an indirect initiative to repeal a voter-approved direct ballot initiative would likely be unconstitutional.
UFRG then pivoted to a direct initiative to put the repeal proposal on November’s ballot. That’s the effort that just flamed out.
So what now? Here’s what to watch.
Can UFRG file a lawsuit?
Maybe. But the Utah Supreme Court has already upheld Utah’s signature‑removal process.
In 2018, Count My Vote gathered more than 132,000 signatures statewide and hit signature targets in 26 state Senate districts for a ballot initiative seeking to shore up Utah’s dual-path nomination system under SB54.
After those signatures were verified, opponents with Keep My Voice went door-to-door in a few Senate districts and persuaded enough signers to withdraw their names to sink the initiative in two districts and keep it off the ballot.
Count My Vote sued, arguing the removal process is so unfair that a single group, or even a highly motivated individual, could single-handedly keep the issue off the ballot.
They argued voters should have to personally submit their removal form instead of having a group like Keep My Voice collect them for bulk delivery.
The court disagreed, saying Utah law doesn’t require voters to personally deliver signature removal requests.
UFRG made a similar claim in its now-abandoned suit to stop Better Boundaries’ removal drive, pointing to prefilled forms and prepaid postage. On the 2026 session’s final day, lawmakers rammed through a ban on using prepaid postage for signature-removal requests.
Count My Vote also claimed the signature removal process burdens sponsors more than opponents with hearings. Sponsors are required to hold hearings, file financial reports, and follow specific rules for circulating petitions, while there are no such requirements for opponents. They also argued sponsors must collect hundreds of thousands of signatures, but opponents only need to peel off a fraction of them, giving voters who pulled their signatures more power than voters who want to put the issue on the ballot.
The justices rejected that, too, ruling that voters who pull their names off petitions are defending the status quo, while sponsors are trying to change the law, so they should be subject to stricter rules.
Can they try again?
Not before 2030.
When an initiative fails to qualify, a two‑year “cooling‑off” period blocks filing an “identically or substantially similar” measure.
The earliest a similar repeal drive could launch is 2028, meaning the earliest the issue could go on the ballot is 2030. That still leaves a window to stop the independent commission from drawing maps for the 2031 redistricting cycle.
What else can opponents do?
Now that the repeal by direct initiative has failed, expect the GOP supermajority in the Utah Legislature to fast-track a constitutional amendment letting lawmakers rewrite voter-approved laws.
In 2024, the Utah Supreme Court said the Legislature overreached when it repealed Prop. 4 in 2021 and replaced it with a watered‑down advisory commission. Any legislative changes to voter‑approved initiatives, the court said, must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.
Lawmakers sprinted into special session to put “Amendment D” on the 2024 ballot, giving the Legislature broad power to change or repeal any initiative. It was thrown off the ballot because the legislature missed the constitutional deadline for publishing the proposed amendment, and the ballot language they wrote was misleading.
Legislative leaders say they plan to put a similar constitutional amendment on November’s ballot. The proposal did not surface during the 2026 session, but leaders have said they plan to address the issue in a special session sometime this year.