**Utah Reps. Burgess Owens and Celeste Maloy Join Local Leaders in Federal Lawsuit Challenging Court-Ordered Congressional Map**

U.S. Representatives Burgess Owens and Celeste Maloy of Utah, along with 11 local leaders, filed a federal lawsuit on Monday alleging that the state’s court-ordered congressional map violates the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit names Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson as the defendant and seeks to prevent her, as the state’s chief election officer, from implementing the new district map for the 2026 elections.

The plaintiffs have asked the U.S. District Court for Utah to declare Utah’s current congressional district map unconstitutional and to reinstate the one approved by state lawmakers in 2021 or allow lawmakers to draft a new map. Owens, Maloy, and the co-plaintiffs explained in an op-ed published in the *Deseret News* that Henderson was named as a defendant out of legal necessity because she is responsible for implementing congressional maps.

“We do not allege malice, bad faith, or improper motive on her part,” they wrote. “To the contrary, this federal lawsuit seeks to relieve her of being compelled to carry out a state court order that exceeds federal constitutional limits.”

### Constitutional Concerns and Judge’s Ruling

The plaintiffs accuse 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson of breaching the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause by imposing new congressional boundaries without approval from the Utah Legislature. The Elections Clause states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

On November 10, just minutes before a midnight deadline requested by the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, Judge Gibson ruled that the Legislature had failed to comply with her interpretation of Utah’s Proposition 4 redistricting law. Instead of ordering lawmakers to redraw a map complying with Prop 4’s anti-gerrymandering requirements, Gibson instructed election officials to implement a map drawn by nonprofit advocacy groups that had sued the state in 2022.

In their 29-page legal complaint, plaintiffs allege that Gibson usurped the Legislature’s authority to draw maps and that using the new map disrupts the state’s congressional representation ahead of the 2026 elections.

### What the Lawsuit Says

The 13 plaintiffs, including seven county commissioners, three sheriffs, and one mayor, emphasized in their *Deseret News* op-ed that the lawsuit “is not an attempt to influence electoral outcomes.” Instead, it is “a necessary response to a breakdown in constitutional order that, if left unaddressed, will weaken representative government in Utah in ways that will not easily be undone,” they wrote.

However, the political implications are clear. Judge Gibson’s map reduces Utah’s Republican-leaning congressional districts from four to three and reshuffles electoral boundaries, making it unclear which districts Owens, Maloy, or Representatives Blake Moore and Mike Kennedy should run in.

Under the new map, Kennedy’s 3rd District would cover all of southern Utah, including Maloy’s residence in Cedar City. Maloy’s 2nd District would shift to northern Utah (currently represented by Moore), while Moore’s 1st District would become concentrated in the Democratic stronghold of Salt Lake City.

### Impact on Campaigns and Voters

In a December special legislative session, the congressional candidate filing deadline was extended from January to March. Still, plaintiffs argue that after considering three potential maps over five months, candidates have lost critical time to campaign before the April convention elections.

Beyond creating an electoral “musical chairs” scenario, the new map appears to disregard geographic concerns raised by voters during legislative hearings. The lawsuit alleges it interferes with voters’ right to participate in an accountable process for determining representation.

The plaintiffs also point out that the new 3rd District would dilute representation across 17 counties—three times as many as other districts—and would sever current representatives from district projects reliant on federal funding.

The complaint notes Henderson’s commitment to comply with Judge Gibson’s order “unless otherwise ordered by an appeals court.” In a November 11 post, Henderson acknowledged that the new map might be appealed but stressed the need to finalize electoral boundaries immediately to prepare county clerks for upcoming elections.

### Background: Utah’s Redistricting Saga

This lawsuit marks a new chapter in Utah’s ongoing redistricting saga, which began with the passage of Proposition 4 in 2018 by a narrow majority of voters. The ballot initiative established a redistricting commission tasked with recommending electoral maps in line with partisan fairness requirements.

In 2021, the Legislature adopted new electoral boundaries that appeared to intentionally split Democratic voters in Salt Lake County after rejecting the commission’s recommendations, which had been declared nonbinding during the prior legislative session.

This led to a 2022 lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. The 2024 Utah Supreme Court decision that followed ruled that while the Legislature cannot, in most cases, amend ballot initiatives that reform government, it retains “ultimate responsibility” for redistricting.

Based on this ruling, Judge Gibson struck down the Legislature’s 2021 map in late August. In November, Gibson ruled the replacement map adopted by lawmakers constituted “an extreme partisan gerrymander” and failed to comply with Prop 4’s original intent. Consequently, she selected a map submitted by nonprofit plaintiffs that created a heavily Democratic seat in Salt Lake County.

### Political Fallout and Next Steps

Over the past four months, disagreement over Prop 4 has intensified, with Republicans alleging that Judge Gibson intentionally gerrymandered maps to benefit Democrats. GOP leaders warn that the new legal precedent jeopardizes Utah’s representative form of government.

The Utah Legislature appealed part of the case to the Utah Supreme Court, arguing that Gibson’s actions violated the Utah Constitution, which mandates the Legislature to “divide the state into congressional districts.” However, the appeal is currently paused due to a motion to dismiss.

Meanwhile, the Utah Republican Party has launched an initiative to repeal Prop 4 via a voter referendum, the same way it was passed. The group has until February 15 to collect 141,000 verified signatures to place the question on the ballot.

A *Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics* poll conducted in January found that over 40% of Utah voters are unsure whether they support the GOP’s effort to repeal Prop 4. The remaining voters are split, with 26% in favor and 29% opposed.

### Local Response

The redistricting controversy has already sparked local resistance. On December 15, Washington County commissioners voted to reject the new court-ordered congressional boundaries.

Commissioner Victor Iverson, a plaintiff in Monday’s lawsuit, cited the decision as a protest against what he called a “constitutional crisis” created by Judge Gibson’s November 10 ruling.

—

*This article will be updated as the lawsuit and redistricting efforts progress.*
https://www.deseret.com/politics/2026/02/02/congressmen-sue-utah-lieutenant-governor-over-new-congressional-map-chosen-by-district-judge-because-violates-us-constitution/