Hello friends,

Greetings from the State Capitol. Today the Legislature convened in a Special Session to address several important issues facing the state. My underlying desire and responsibility is to represent your views and voices on these issues and to be transparent and accountable to you, which is why I’m sending this to you immediately after the Special Session concluded.

Enclosed you will find my voting record for each of today’s bills, as well as an explanation about Congressional redistricting.

Thank you to everyone who reached out to me sharing your ideas, concerns, and recommendations about today’s bills.

All my best,

Stephen

HB1001 Great Salt Lake Amendments: Voted Yes (bill unanimously passed the House, 73 yes, 0 no, 2 absent)

• This amended Utah Code will enable the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands to raise the Great Salt Lake adaptive management berm under certain circumstances.
• Current problem: Under current law, the Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands does not have the flexibility it needs to properly manage the berm in the Great Salt Lake.
• Solution: HB1011 fixes this problem by allowing the berm to be raised to 4,192 feet when needed to prevent dangerous salinity spikes in Gilbert Bay. Just as important as the flexibility to raise the berm, are the requirements on the Division to lower the berm. The bill requires that the berm is raised if the South Arm elevation drops to 4,190 feet or lower. It requires the Division to have a plan and a timeline to lower the berm within 18 months so the north and south arms are balanced within two feet of each other, and it requires the Division to comply with their plan. Finally, the Division is required to consult with the Great Salt Lake Commissioner before any berm modification.
• This summer has been a difficult one for the Great Salt Lake: warm and dry. Our goal is to save the entire lake, and this bill gives the Division just a little more flexibility in their work of preserving the entire lake. This bill is not about closing off the North arm and making the berm permanent. This bill is just expanding a tool the Division has been effectively using to manage salinity. Learn more by watching the Committee’s presentation here.

HB1002 Property Manager Requirements: Voted Yes (bill unanimously passed the House, 72 yes, 0 no, 3 absent)

• This bill made a few needed clarifications of HB337 which the Legislature passed and Governor signed into law in the 2025 General Legislative Session. This bill clarifies a real estate professional who has a current valid license would not need to obtain a new property manager license to engage in property management.

HB1003 Vehicle Assessment Amendments: Voted Yes (bill unanimously passed the House, 73 yes, 0 no, 2 absent)

• This bill made a few needed clarifications of HB272 which the Legislature passed and Governor signed into law in the 2025 General Legislative Session. This bill modified and clarified the vehicle weights required to be tested for emissions compliance.

HB1004 Election Record Amendments: Voted Yes (bill unanimously passed in the House, 73 yes, 0 no, 2 absent)

• This bill made a few needed clarifications of HB236 which the Legislature passed and Governor signed into law in the 2025 General Legislative Session. Specifically it, 1) clarified definitions and defined new terms, 2) addressed retention requirements for certain election records, and 3) modified reporting requirements related to certain election-related data.

HB1005 County Governance Amendments: Voted Yes (bill passed the House, 57 yes, 16 no, 2 absent)

• This bill made a few needed clarifications of HB356 which the Legislature passed and Governor signed into law in the 2025 General Legislative Session. Specifically this bill brought greater clarity to modify when a council member in certain counties must represent a single district, and other related provisions.

SB1001 and SB1002 Higher Education Recodification and Higher Education Recodification External References: Voted Yes (SB1001 bill passed the House, 69 yes, 3 no, 3 absent; SB1002 bill passed the House, 69 yes, 4 no, 2 absent)

• This bill has been worked on for over a year to clean up existing law related to higher education, avoid duplication of laws, make it easier to navigate and understand. It also clarifies what is expected for public institutions and private institutions which will eliminate confusion and intertwinement of code.

SB 1003 Judiciary Amendments: Voted Yes (bill passed the House, 58 yes, 15, no, 2 absent)

• As allowed by Article VIII, Section 2, of the Utah Constitution, this is a proposal to change the process for selection as well as term of the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court.

SB1004 Revisor’s Technical Corrections to Utah Code: Voted Yes (bill unanimously passed the House, 73 yes, 0 no, 2 absent)

• This bill is a technical clean-up bill to improve cross references issues.

SB1005 Local Optional Sales Tax Amendments: Voted Yes (bill passed the House, 66 yes, 5 no, 4 absent)

• This bill was presented in the 2025 General Session and received support in the House and Senate via the concurrence calendar. This bill provides an option for rural counties, if the citizens vote in support of, to adjust local option sales and use taxes paid by tourists to fund emergency services within certain counties.

SB1006 and SB1007 Title 17 Recodification General Provisions and County Officers and Related Provisions: Voted Yes (SB1006 bill passed the House, 69 yes, 3 no, 3 absent; SB1007 bill passed the House, 69 yes, 4 no, 2 absent)

• This bill makes no policy changes but cleans up and clarifies existing county law. The last time this occurred was in 1953. After two years of working on the recodification, the length of the recodification was so long it was broken into 5 bills referenced as SB1006, SB1007, SB1008, SB1009, SB1010

SB1008 Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act Recodification: Voted Yes (bill passed the House, 64 yes, 8 no, 3 absent)

• See details explained above in SB1006

SB1009 and SB1010 County Recodification External References Amendments and Modifications: Voted Yes (SB1009 bill passed the House, 66 yes, 6 no, 3 absent; SB1010 bill passed the House, 66 yes, 4 no, 5 absent)

• See details explained above in SB1006

SB1011 Redistricting Standards: Voted Yes (bill passed the House, 55 yes, 18 no, and 2 absent, and it passed the Senate with 22 yes, 7 no)

• See explanation below in this newsletter.

SB1012 Congressional Boundaries Designation: Voted Yes (bill passed the House 56 yes, 17 no, 2 absent, and it passed the Senate with 18 yes, 9 no, 2 absent)

• See explanation below in this newsletter.

HJR101 Resolution approving acceptance by the State of Utah of Rural Health Transformation Program funds granted under Public Law 119-21, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act: Voted Yes (billed unanimously passed the House, 72 yes votes, 0 no votes, 3 absent)

• A new $100 million grant for rural healthcare is now available to Utah from the federal government. Any grant over $10 million must be approved by the Legislature. The $100 million will be provided/spread out over 5 years and contain guardrails to ensure the funds are used in a way that won’t create future obligations. Details about the use of this money by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services will be further discussed in the 2026 Legislative General Session.

Over the past month there has been a lot of interest, media coverage, and social media chatter about Utah’s Congressional boundaries and the realignment process of creating Utah’s four Congressional maps. As I have spent a significant amount of time with these issues, I’ve been asked many questions and I’ve noticed there is confusion, misinformation, incomplete stories, and false “facts” being circulated about redistricting. To help bring clarity to this issue, I will begin by sharing the real facts, explaining the process, answering questions, and then explaining my vote.

Facts:

• Every ten years a federal census is taken throughout the nation, and in Utah, per the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 2). The last census was conducted in 2020, and the census results were released in April 2020.
• Utah’s population number per the census was 3,271,616, which is the official number to be used for creating maps.
• Following federal law and based upon Utah’s population, Utah is allotted four U.S. Congressional seats.
• After the census numbers were released, the boundaries of the four Utah Congressional districts were created.
• In the following the federal redistricting laws, the Voting Rights Act requires equal population in each Congressional district. The four Utah Congressional districts ideal target population is 817,904 people per district (total population of 3,271,616 divided by four districts),
• The Utah Constitution (Article IX, Section 1: Apportionment and Districting) reads: “The Legislature shall apportion the state into senate and house districts and into congressional districts according to the number of inhabitants, as shown by the federal census. The Legislature may alter the boundaries of districts and apportion representation as provide by law.”

What is Proposition 4 (Prop 4) and how is it involved with Utah’s Congressional boundaries?

• Utah Proposition 4 (in 2018) titled “Independent Advisory Redistricting Commission Initiative” was a citizen initiative designed to change how Utah’s congressional, legislative, and school board district boundaries are drawn after each census by creating an independent redistricting commission to recommend maps to the Legislature.
• On November 6, 2018, Utah voters approved Proposition 4 by a razor-thin margin (50.34% to 49.66%). It was backed by a grassroots group Better Boundaries Utah.
• Because Prop 4 passed, it became law and a 7-member Independent Redistricting Commission was created to propose maps to the Legislature after each census.

What is SB200?

• In March 2020 before redistricting began, to ensure alignment with the Utah Constitution which states the Legislature has the sole constitutional authority to decide congressional boundaries (Article IX, Section 1), the Legislature passed SB200 which clarified that the Independent Redistricting Commission was advisory to the Legislature rather than binding.

How the 2021 Congressional district boundaries were created:

• Following the 2021 redistricting process outlined here, the Utah Legislature (Legislative Redistricting Committee) spent months traveling the state and holding 19 public meetings to gather input from the public to create maps.
• The Independent Redistricting Commission also held public meetings throughout the state to create maps, which the Commission presented to the Legislature.
• The Legislature, after evaluating all the proposed maps, made a final decision and adopted the four new Congressional maps on November 12, 2021.

Lawsuits:

• In March 2022, Better Boundaries, the League of Women Voters, and Mormon Women for Ethical Government sued arguing that the Legislature violated the people’s right to pass initiatives and that gerrymandered maps violated Utah’s constitution. The lawsuit only challenged the state’s four Congressional seats not the boundaries for the state legislative districts or school board districts.
• The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments in July 2023 and ruled in July 2024 that the lawsuit could proceed, confirming voters have a constitutional right to enact laws like Proposition 4.
• On August 25, 2025, Utah’s Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson ruled 1) the Legislature overstepped when it adjusted the 2018 ballot initiative creating an independent redistricting commission, 2) ordered lawmakers to draw new congressional maps in time for the 2026 election, 3) comply with a set of specific standards in Prop 4 to create new congressional maps, and 4) wrote, “Given the general, non-specific nature of the language, the Legislature retains discretion in determining what judicial standards are applicable and they retain discretion to determine the ‘best available data and scientific and statistical methods’ to use in evaluating redistricting plans for compliance with state and federal law and the Proposition 4 redistricting.”

How the new Congressional maps are to be created:

• Redistricting requirements and standards required by law, per Prop 4:
  • The Legislature and the Commission may not divide districts in a manner that purposefully or unduly favors or disfavors any incumbent, elected official, candidate or prospective candidate for elective office, or any political party.
  • Prop 4 requires that maps abide by the following redistricting standards to the greatest extent practicable and in the following order of priority:
    • Population deviation
    • Minimizing the division of municipalities and counties
    • Compactness, contiguity, and ease of transportation
    • Preserving neighborhoods and communities of interest
    • Following natural geography and boundaries
    • Maximizing alignment across different types of districts
  • The Legislature and Commission shall use judicial standards and the best available data and scientific and statistical methods, including measures of partisan symmetry, to assess whether a proposed redistricting plan abides by and conforms to the redistricting standards.
  • Partisan political data and information, such as partisan election results, voting records, political party affiliation information, and residential addresses of incumbent elected officials and candidates or prospective candidates for elective office, may not be considered by the Legislature or by the Commission.

What standards, best available data and scientific and statistical methods should be used to create congressional maps?

• Partisan symmetry means both major political parties should have an equal chance to win seats with the same share of the vote.
• The Partisan Bias Test is the method used to measure partisan symmetry. It evaluates whether district lines give one party an advantage the other would not enjoy with the same level of voter support. The test:
  • Equalizes votes to see if both parties would have the same opportunity to win.
  • Identifies unfair practices like packing (concentrating one group into a single district to dilute influence elsewhere) or cracking (splitting a group across districts to weaken its voting power).
  • Uses hypothetical elections, not actual results, to detect bias built into the map.
• Juge Gibson noted that the language of Proposition 4 was “general” and “non-specific” and invited the legislature to determine “what judicial standards are applicable” and to “determine the best available data and scientific and statistical methods to use in evaluating redistricting plans for compliance with Proposition 4.” (see Judge’s order, pages 29-30).
• Judge Gibson’s critique of Proposition 4 provides guidance for the Legislature in establishing clear judicial standards for courts to apply when reviewing maps.
• In short, both the Legislature and the Independent Redistricting Commission should be able to determine upfront whether their maps comply with Proposition 4, rather than waiting for each map to be litigated.
• You can watch a full explanation of the partisan symmetry policy and tests by clicking here.

What is the Partisan Symmetry Bill and why does it matter?

• The bill SB1011 Redistricting Standards, voted on in the October 6, 2025 Special Session, sets up three tests to be used as the standard and method moving forward to create congressional maps. The three tests are:
  • Partisan symmetry test (explained above)
  • Mean medium test (tests the vote distribution)
  • Ensemble test (tests the overall fairness of distribution of the two other tests)
• The bill ensures fairness by providing a pass/fail measure based on whether a map meets partisan symmetry.
• The bill gives immediate clarity of those submitting maps, rather than waiting for court rulings.
• The bill helps prevent ongoing legal disputes and confusion by giving judges a clear method to apply.
• The bill ensures transparency and consistency in redistricting, protecting against drawn-out lawsuits.
• The bill creates an objective and consistent baseline for assessing maps.

Are there additional requirements the Legislature is following or considering when preparing the congressional maps?

• After Proposition 4 requirements have been met, the Legislative Redistricting Committee has determined additional key preferences that reflect Utah’s unique needs in each congressional district to include:
  • Rural and urban balance
  • Military installations
  • Institutions of higher education
  • Percentage of federal lands

Why rural and urban areas?

• The Legislature’s goal is to ensure that every Utahn, whether from a small farming town, a rural community or an urban area, has a strong voice in Congress. Farmers, ranchers, city workers and business owners deserve equal representation in Washington.
• The Legislature believes each member of Congress should serve both rural and urban communities. Utah is strongest when every voice—whether from Main Street or a family ranch—is heard and represented.
• It’s also important that each member of Congress represent and understand federal lands, rural healthcare access, and water resources.

Was partisan data used to create the maps?

• No. Under current law, the Legislature is prohibited from considering partisan political data or information in connection with redistricting.
• In compliance with both the court’s order and Proposition 4, the Legislature is taking every step to avoid any reference to, or use of, partisan data. This means the Legislature cannot look at election results, voting records, party affiliations or information about incumbents or prospective candidates when reviewing maps.
• For that reason, and out of an abundance of caution, the Legislature has not and will not review or consider partisan political data. This ensures the Legislature remains in compliance with the law and the constitutional requirements that no map may favor or disfavor any political party or candidate.

Is creating new Congressional maps in Utah connected to what Texas, California and other states are doing to intentionally gerrymander their Congressional maps?

• No. Utah’s situation has been tied up in the Courts for many years and the timing of Judge Gibson’s decision, ironically and coincidentally, was released near the same time Texas, California and other states are intentionally gerrymandering their Congressional districts.

Why doesn’t the Legislature just adopt an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) map from 2021?

• The court’s order specifically says that the Legislature cannot use IRC maps as they were established under SB200.
• Additionally, the IRC maps do not meet the requirements of Proposition 4.

What new maps were presented?

• All committee maps and maps submitted by the public are online here.
• The maps, which are accessible online, can be viewed here:
  • Option A: https://citygate.utleg.gov/legdistricting/comments/plan/233/12 
  • Option B: https://citygate.utleg.gov/legdistricting/comments/plan/234/12 
  • Option C: https://citygate.utleg.gov/legdistricting/comments/plan/235/12 
  • Option D: https://citygate.utleg.gov/legdistricting/comments/plan/236/12 
  • Option E: https://citygate.utleg.gov/legdistricting/comments/plan/237/12 
  • Escamilla / Owens map: https://citygate.utleg.gov/legdistricting/comments/plan/249/12
• An independent analysis of all six maps can be found here: https://le.utah.gov/interim/2025/pdf/00003667.pdf
• On September 23, The Salt Lake Tribune newspaper wrote, “All five of the congressional maps proposed by Utah’s Legislative Redistricting Committee include at least one competitive seat, according to an analysis of recent voting data by The Salt Lake Tribune. While the vast majority of the seats favor Republicans, which is to be expected in a conservative state, each of the newly proposed maps would give a strong Democratic candidate a fighting chance.”

How can people comment on a map?

• In following Judge Gibson’s ruling, only a 10-day period was granted for Utahns to provide comments.
• Although not required, the Legislature held two public meetings to give citizens an opportunity to provide comments.
• Public comments were open for any Utahn between September 25 and October 5.
• Public comments can be viewed here: https://redistricting.utah.gov/2025-legislative-redistricting/

Why must the Congressional maps be created within a timeline that feels rushed?

• The Lieutenant Governor’s Office, who has oversight of state elections, must receive the updated Congressional maps by November 10 in order to be prepared for the election process next year and give country clerks around the state enough time to prepare for the 2026 midterm elections.
• Judge Gibson gave the legislature 30 days to come up with new maps or the Judge would create the maps.
• The Legislature appealed the timeframe to the Utah Supreme Court to provide more time for meaningful statewide input and involvement, but the Utah Supreme Court denied the appeal.
• The Judge, having had this case since July 2024, could have ruled on this case at any point over the past year but instead released the decision in August 2025. See timeline here.

Why are some cities being split between Congressional districts?

• Prop 4 requires maps to minimize the division of municipalities and counties.
• The ideal population number for each Congressional district is 817,905 (Utah population 3,271,616 divided by four districts)
• The state has four cities that have boundaries that extend across county boundaries:
  • Bluffdale (Salt Lake and Utah Counties)
  • Draper (Salt Lake and Utah Counties)
  • Park City (Summit and Wasatch Counties)
  • Santaquin (Juab and Utah Counties)
• While trying to minimize the division of cities and counties, a few cities will likely need to be split between two Congressional districts to achieve the target/ideal population headcount in each district.

Why is Salt Lake County being split between Congressional districts?

• The population of Salt Lake County is 1,185,238.
• Each Congressional district’s headcount is 817,905.
• As a result Salt Lake County cannot fit within just one Congressional district and must be divided.

What happened today (Oct 6) and what are the next steps?

• On October 6, the following happened:
  • the Legislative Redistricting Committee met to vote on a recommended map to present to the full Legislature. The Committee recommended map Map C.
  • the Legislature met in a Special Session and voted on SB1011 Redistricting Standards. This was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.
  • the Legislature voted on the recommended map.
• Going forward:
  • The voted-on map will be given to Judge Gibson.
  • Oct. 17: Parties file briefs, expert reports, and other materials in support of respective map submissions and in opposition to any map submissions, if necessary.
  • Oct. 23-24: Evidentiary hearing, if necessary.
  • Oct. 28: Parties file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with the court, if necessary.
  • The final map has to be chosen by November 10 by the Judge.

My personal analysis:

• The Utah Constitution (Article IX, Section 1: Apportionment and Districting) reads: “The Legislature shall apportion the state into senate and house districts and into congressional districts according to the number of inhabitants, as shown by the federal census. The Legislature may alter the boundaries of districts and apportion representation as provide by law.”
• These two sentences in the Utah Constitution are being interpreted in different ways by different people and organizations.
• My interpretation of these two sentences is that the Legislature has the sole constitutional authority to decide congressional boundaries.
• Having a court or a judge make the final decision on congressional maps is not following the Utah Constitution.
• The Legislature has proposed a new congressional map that follows the requirements of Prop 4.

My voting rationale:

• I voted in support of the new Congressional map “C” per SB1012 Congressional Boundaries Designation and I voted in support of SB1011 Redistricting Standards based upon the facts and details provided above.

Unsubscribe from future updates