Time runs out: Federal panel won't block Utah's congressional map as midterms near
A three‑judge federal panel unanimously denied a bid by Utah Republicans—fronted by Reps. Celeste Maloy and Burgess Owens—to block the congressional map set to be used in the 2026 midterms. That map centers a Democratic-leaning district in Salt Lake County.
Unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, the court-imposed map is likely the one voters will see in 2026.
The panel leaned on the Purcell principle, a warning to federal courts not to upend election rules “close to an election” because it breeds chaos and voter confusion. With Utah’s caucuses three weeks away and the primary season already effectively underway, the court said a federal injunction now would scramble the process for voters and candidates alike.
“Because Utah’s election system begins formally identifying primary candidates during the caucuses (unlike Texas), the primary campaign season begins before the caucus dates. With the caucuses scheduled just three weeks from now, Utah has entered an active primary campaign season, even if the congressional candidate filing period has not yet opened,” they wrote.
Candidate filing for congressional elections opens March 9, party caucuses are March 17, and party conventions are set for April 25. The panel also noted that the plaintiffs waited until Feb. 2 to sue over a map adopted more than two months earlier, which undercut any claim the situation was an emergency.
Even setting the timing issue aside, the judges said the plaintiffs were unlikely to win on the merits.
They argued the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives only state legislatures and Congress the power to draw congressional districts. So when Utah Third District Judge Dianna Gibson tossed the congressional map approved by lawmakers and implemented a replacement, she usurped that power. They asked the court to either order the state to return to the 2021 map or at least give the Utah Legislature time to draw a new one.
In its decision, the panel noted the mess that landed Utah with a court-imposed map in the first place:
- The 2021 map had already been ruled unlawful.
- The 2011 map was unusable after population shifts.
- The Legislature’s replacement, “Map C,” violated Prop. 4—the voter-approved anti-gerrymandering initiative the Utah Supreme Court reinstated in July 2024—and was unlawful.
- Election deadlines were looming, so doing nothing would leave the state without a valid map for the 2026 midterms.
In that case, they said, existing precedent allows a court to step in so that the state has a lawful map in place.
Judge Timothy Tymkovich concurred but argued Purcell should not be a factor in this case. He said Utah “has not entered an active primary season” and noted the lieutenant governor told the court she could implement a new map for caucuses and a primary. He also questioned whether Prop 4 empowers state courts to impose their own maps without more guidance from the Utah Supreme Court.
Still, he agreed federal courts can’t resurrect the unlawful 2021 map, and the plaintiffs are unlikely to win the case on its merits.
“I do not believe the Elections Clause allows us to require the Lieutenant Governor to substitute the 2021 Map absent directions from the Utah Supreme Court,” he wrote, adding he’d advise his colleagues to “hold our hand” on ratifying the state court’s remedy until Utah’s high court weighs in.
He also dinged Judge Gibson for her handling of the case. After the Utah Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 that the Legislature overstepped its constitutional authority by repealing Prop. 4, Gibson waited until January 2025 to hold a hearing. She then set four months for supplemental briefings and then took another four months to rule on August 25. When lawmakers passed a new map on October 6, Gibson struck it down and adopted the plaintiffs’ alternative at the last minute, leaving lawmakers no time to try again.
“By waiting more than a year after remand to issue a ruling, and pressing against the Lieutenant Governor’s November deadline, the district court created timing and remedy issues that otherwise might not exist,” Tymkovich wrote.
“As a result, this court has now been asked to answer federal and state questions of great import within three weeks…Further, the court’s adoption of a map proposed by an undoubtedly interested, non-governmental party unnecessarily raises doubts about the fairness of the process. None of this need have happened.”
The plaintiffs still could appeal the decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Comments