Stop Appealing Court-Ordered Map and Respect Voter-Approved Redistricting

I am writing to oppose the planned appeal of Judge Dianna Gibson's court-ordered congressional map to the Utah Supreme Court and the special session scheduled for December 9. This appeal represents another costly attempt to override the will of Utah voters who approved an independent redistricting process through a 2018 ballot initiative. The Legislature's 2021 adoption of a map with four safe Republican congressional districts directly undid what voters explicitly requested. When pro-democracy groups successfully challenged this as a blatant gerrymander, the judicial system performed its constitutional duty by ordering a remedy. Now, instead of accepting this ruling, legislative leaders are spending more taxpayer money to fight a decision that restores what voters originally wanted. The irony of House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams claiming that an unelected judge silenced Utahns is striking. It was the Legislature that silenced voters by dismantling their 2018 ballot initiative. The Utah Supreme Court has already ruled that the Legislature's power to change government reform ballot initiatives has limits. This appeal ignores that precedent and disrespects both the judicial process and voter intent. The proposed constitutional amendment to clarify when lawmakers can change ballot initiatives is particularly concerning. This appears designed to give the Legislature broader authority to override future voter-approved measures. Voters should not need to fight their own elected officials to have their voices heard on government reform. I urge you to vote against the appeal, oppose any special session aimed at delaying or undermining Judge Gibson's ruling, and reject constitutional amendments that would weaken direct democracy in Utah. Stop spending our tax dollars fighting the voting public. The 2018 ballot initiative represented the clear will of Utah citizens for fair redistricting, and that will should be respected rather than repeatedly challenged in court.