⏰ Tick Tock

15 days - First day candidates (except Congressional candidates) can file for the 2026 election. (1/2/2026)
33 days - Start of the 2026 Utah Legislature (1/20/2026)
81 days - First day congressional candidates can file to run for the 2026 election. (3/9/2026)
89 days - Neighborhood caucus night. (3/17/2026)
128 days - Utah Democratic Party's state nominating convention (4/25/2026)
187 days - Utah's 2026 primary election (6/23/2026)
320 days - 2026 midterm elections (11/3/2026)
1,055 days - 2028 presidential election (11/7/2028)

On the house!

We're making this one available to all readers. If you find it valuable, consider becoming a paid subscriber—your support is what keeps this kind of journalism going.

Subscribe

Utah legislature missed its own appeal deadline-now wants a mulligan before 2026

Like Michael Scott shouting “I declare bankruptcy!” Utah’s GOP lawmakers seem to think you can appeal by vibes alone. The redistricting plaintiffs say the legislature blew its own 30‑day fast‑track appeal and is now begging the court for a do‑over before the 2026 midterms.

In a Wednesday court filing, plaintiffs argued the legislature had a clear 30-day path to appeal Third District Judge Dianna Gibson’s August 2025 order striking down the 2021 congressional map and SB200, which repealed the voter-approved anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative—and chose not to take it.

“Legislative Defendants had the right to appeal both the Court’s August 2025 order and its subsequent November 10 order—and either missed the deadline or intentionally chose not to appeal. Having sat on their appellate rights, they now demand the expeditious entry of final judgment with lightning speed briefing and decision.

Lawmakers counter that plaintiffs are stalling to block an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court—and maybe the U.S. Supreme Court—before the 2026 midterms. They’re urging Gibson to enter a final judgment on everything, or certify parts of it so they can start the appeals process. Under Rule 54(b), a judge can certify a ruling on fewer than all claims for appeal while the rest of the case keeps moving.

Here’s the twist: they changed the law this year to allow immediate appeals when a judge enjoins a state law on constitutional grounds. Sen. Brady Brammer’s SB204 created that fast lane—now Utah Code § 78B‑5‑1002—largely in response to courts pausing the state’s near‑total abortion ban after Roe fell. They just didn’t use it here.

Even the Utah Supreme Court sounded baffled. In a Sept. 15 decision—inside the original 30‑day window—the justices wrote, “We are unsure why Legislative Defendants doubt that an appeal under section 78B‑5‑1002 would not provide them with a ‘speedy’ or ‘adequate’ remedy… to the extent Legislative Defendants intended to seek review of the district court’s injunctive orders, they could have invoked section 78B‑5‑1002 and pursued a direct appeal.”

Plaintiffs argue when Gibson invalidated the 2021 congressional map and found SB200’s repeal of Prop 4—Utah’s voter‑approved anti‑gerrymandering law—unconstitutional. That opened a 30‑day appeal window the legislature didn’t use. Now, plaintiffs say, lawmakers are trying to manufacture a second bite at the apple.

“Legislative Defendants accuse Plaintiffs of seeking ‘to delay the proceedings and prejudice Legislative Defendants’ ability to appeal this Court’s decisions to the Utah Supreme Court and to possibly seek U.S. Supreme Court review before the 2026 election.’ To make that assertion 108 days after this Court’s August 2025 order and 66 days after their deadline to appeal the August 2025 order as a matter of right—during which time Legislative Defendants sat on their hands and did nothing to effectuate appeal—is audacious in the extreme. The only party that has delayed is Legislative Defendants. They missed an appellate deadline they created.”

Put simply, lawmakers had 30 days to file an interlocutory appeal. They didn’t. Now they have to wait for a true final decision—which explains the sudden rush to get Gibson to certify one.

Even if Gibson granted a partial final judgment on the August rulings, plaintiffs argue the Utah Supreme Court still couldn’t take up the appeal because major issues remain: the legislature’s “Option C” replacement map, which they say violates Prop 4, and SB1011, the new “fairness” criteria they contend runs afoul of the Utah Constitution. Miss the first window, and you wait until the rest of the case is resolved.

Even if Gibson were to agree with the legislature and render a final judgment on this specific part of the lawsuit, plaintiffs point out that the Utah Supreme Court could not consider an appeal because of the other unresolved issues in the case. Plaintiffs have challenged the “Option C” replacement map approved by lawmakers because they claim it violates Prop. 4. They’ve also challenged SB1011, which created specific criteria for judging whether a congressional map could be considered “fair,” alleging that it violates the Utah Constitution. Once the legislature missed the original 30-day window, any appeal must wait for those issues to play out in the court.

The legislature has until Friday to file its response, after which Gibson says she will issue a ruling.