SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether or not courts ought to permit the state’s Republican-majority Legislature to carve up Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County into 4 congressional districts.

The battle asks if state courts can consider whether or not district maps drawn by elected officers violate the state structure and is the most recent battle over how states draw such maps. It follows a latest landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling denying legislatures absolute energy to take action.

Utah - together with Kentucky, New Mexico, New York,Pennsylvania, Maryland and Alaska - is among the many states through which Republicans and Democrats have battled over whether or not partisan gerrymandering violates the regulation and imperils folks’s proper to decide on their representatives in a democracy.

Utah differs from these different venues, nevertheless, as a result of voters in 2018 permitted an initiative creating an unbiased redistricting fee designed to make sure maps weren’t drawn to favor one celebration over one other. Its energy was stripped a 12 months and a half later by the Legislature.

Seven voters and two advocacy teams - the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government - sued the Legislature final 12 months over the maps handed in 2021. In their lawsuit, they argue the Republican-drawn map “takes a slice of Salt Lake County,” which is the state’s most Democratic-leaning, “and grafts it onto large swaths of the rest of Utah.”

“The effect is to disperse non-Republican voters among several districts, diluting their electoral strength and stifling their contrary viewpoints,” their attorneys argue in court docket paperwork.

Attorneys for Utah need the state Supreme Court to dismiss the case and argue districting is solely a matter for the Legislature to resolve, past the purview of the courts. If the case proceeds, a decide might doubtlessly rule the maps unconstitutional and provoke a court-directed course of to redraw districts.

The case is the most recent high-profile redistricting battle and follows two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on maps drawn by state Legislatures. In 2019, the court docket dominated that district maps - and partisan gerrymandering claims difficult them - have been outdoors the purview of federal courts and for states to resolve.

Last month, it determined that lawmakers have been sure by state constitutional restraints in drawing maps and stated the state Supreme Court in North Carolina had the jurisdiction to assessment the state’s maps. Attorneys for Utah in earlier court docket filings requested justices to delay their determination till the U.S. Supreme Court dominated on that case, Harper v. Moore.

In opening arguments Tuesday, Utah’s attorneys didn't lean into the idea on the coronary heart of North Carolina’s arguments, generally known as unbiased state legislature principle; nevertheless, Utah’s 4 congressional members relied closely on the idea in a quick they filed in help of the state.

But much like attorneys representing North Carolina, Utah’s argued redistricting was a legislative matter and court docket intervention threatens the separation of powers between courts and legislatures.

The state tempered its arguments Tuesday. As Republican state lawmakers sat behind her, lawyer Taylor Meehan acknowledged the Legislature didn't have absolute energy to attract maps. But she warned that court docket intervention risked injecting arbitrary requirements into redistricting past the court docket’s energy.

“It’s replete in their claim that there are too many Republicans in the districts, and that is unfair,” Meehan stated of the voters’ case. “The claim here is that it’s within this court’s power to redraw the lines and that it’s within this court’s power to decide whether a fair district is a 50-50 district in Salt Lake or a ‘safe’ district in Salt Lake, or whether a fair district is one that stretches across the entire state.”

Disagreement between attorneys representing Utah and the voters suing arose over learn how to interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that partisan gerrymandering wasn’t a matter for federal courts to resolve. Attorneys for Utah argued that the case advised redistricting was for lawmakers. Mark Gaber, representing the voters, argued that limiting courts and poll initiatives ran counter to the court docket’s ruling that partisan gerrymandering was a matter of state regulation.

“If this isn’t what Justice Roberts envisioned as the solution - the people getting together and saying, ‘We’re going to exercise our power and stop this’ - then I can’t imagine how his words have meaning,” he stated, referring to the 2018 voter initiative creating an unbiased redistricting fee.

It’s not clear when the justices will problem a ruling.

Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC.

Content Source: www.washingtontimes.com