Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018)

Elections in Utah, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9 (mail), or Oct. 30 (online or in-person)
• Early voting: Oct. 23 - Nov. 2
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: Yes
• Voter ID: Non-photo ID required
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • School boards • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Utah Proposition 4
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Redistricting measures
Status Approved/Altered
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Utah measuresUtah Constitutional Amendment AUtah Constitutional Amendment BUtah Constitutional Amendment CUtah Nonbinding Opinion Question 1Utah Proposition 2Utah Proposition 3Utah Proposition 4Submit

Utah Proposition 4, the Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative, was on the ballot in Utah as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. It was approved and then altered by the legislature.

A "yes" vote supported this measure to create a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft and recommend to the Utah State Legislature maps for congressional and state legislative districts according to certain criteria.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to create a seven-member independent redistricting commission responsible for drafting and recommending congressional and state legislative district maps to the Utah State Legislature for its approval or rejection.

Election results

Utah Proposition 4
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		512,218	50.34%
No		505,274	49.66%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

Senate Bill 200

See also: Legislative alteration

Senate Bill 200, which was passed by the legislature on March 18, 2020, was designed to make changes to Proposition 4 and the redistricting process. SB 200 was passed by a vote of 25-0 in the Senate and 67-4 in the House. Under Senate Bill 200, the redistricting commission established by Proposition 4 was designed to remain and the state legislature was set to also have its own redistricting committee. Both the commission and committee could recommend maps. The bill removed Proposition 4's requirement that the legislature explain its decisions regarding maps. It also repealed Proposition 4 provisions that prohibited the commission and the Legislature from using partisan political data, such as partisan election results and voting records, when drafting maps, and from drawing districts that purposefully or unduly favored or disfavored any incumbent, candidate, or political party. SB 200 was designed to appropriate $1 million to fund the redistricting commission.

League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature

In July 2022, the Utah League of Women Voters, along with Mormon Women for Ethical Government, filed a lawsuit challenging both the legality of SB 200 and the 2021 redistricting maps created and approved by the state legislature. They stated that the state legislature had "rescinded critical Proposition 4 reforms and enacted watered-down versions of others." They also said that the legislative redistricting committee violated Utahns' right to vote and right to free speech by dividing Salt Lake County, a county with the state's largest concentration of voters for minority parties, into four congressional districts. They also stated that the legislature had gerrymandered the electoral maps, which violated some voters' constitutional rights as the maps "had the effect of substantially diminishing or diluting their votes."

Lawyers for the state legislature stated that they had not violated the constitution because the legislature is "authorized to amend or repeal any statute...without constitutional limitation." They also argued that the state constitution grants the legislature sole and total power over deciding the boundaries of electoral districts.

On August 25, 2025, Judge Dianna M. Gibson of the Utah Third Judicial District Court ruled that Senate Bill 200 (SB 200) was unconstitutional. She held "that the Legislature unconstitutionally repealed Proposition 4, and enacted S.B. 200, in violation of the people’s fundamental right to reform redistricting in Utah and to prohibit partisan gerrymandering." Therefore, House Bill 2004 (HB 2004), which enacted the state’s existing congressional districts map, was also unconstitutional. The ruling applies only to the federal congressional district map for Utah, not the state legislative districts or the school board districts, as that was the only map challenged in the lawsuit. The ruling gave the legislature a 30-day deadline to adopt a new map that complies with the requirements of Proposition 4.

Earlier, on October 24, 2022, Judge Gibson rejected a similar argument from plaintiffs, who appealed to the Utah Supreme Court. On July 11, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion ruling that Judge Gibson's district court ruling was incorrect. The opinion directed the district court to reevaluate the claim under a different framework. This framework focused on two phrases in the state constitution described as the Initiative Provision and Alter or Reform Clause.

Article VI, Section 1(1), Utah Constitution (Initiative Provision) provides that legislative power is vested in both the state legislature and the people through the initiative process.

Article 1, Section 2, Utah Constitution (Alter or Reform Clause) provides that the people have "the right to alter or reform their government."

Justice Paige Petersen wrote the high court's opinion. She stated that, "when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through a citizen initiative, their exercise of these rights is protected from government infringement. This means that government-reform initiatives are constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement. Although the Legislature has authority to amend or repeal statutes, it is well settled that legislative action cannot unduly infringe or restrain the exercise of constitutional rights. Consequently, when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through an initiative, this limits the Legislature’s authority to amend or repeal the initiative."

Therefore, legislation to amend a government-reform ballot initiative, such as Proposition 4, would need to be "narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest," according to the court. It was this point that Judge Gibson referred to when she issued her ruling on August 25, 2025, that SB 200 and the 2021 electoral maps were unconstitutional. SB 200 was not sufficiently narrowly tailored.

On September 13, 2025, the Utah Supreme Court stated that they would grant the state legislature an expedited review of their petition to block Judge Gibson's ruling. On September 16, the Utah Supreme Court rejected the state legislatures request to block the ruling, stating that the state legislature failed to prove that the Judge Gibson's ruling abused its power in requiring new maps. Their opinion stated, "Their complaints about the remedial process do not demonstrate that the court’s denial of the stay order is legally wrong or that the court otherwise abused its discretion. Without that, they have not shown why they should receive the extraordinary relief they seek here."

Reactions

• Senate President J. Stuart Adams (R-7) and House Speaker Mike Schultz (R-12) made a joint statement following the ruling. They said, “We remain committed to protecting the voices of Utahns and upholding the Legislature’s state and federal constitutional authority to draw congressional districts. We will carefully review the ruling and consider our next steps.”

• The Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin issued a statement following the ruling. He said, “The DNC applauds the Third District Court in Utah for striking down Utah's blatant, gerrymandered maps. Utahns deserve representation that reflects the demographic and ideological makeup of the state. Utah Republicans gerrymandered the maps because they knew they were losing power in the state, and they attempted to stop Democratic gains in the state.”

• The Utah Democratic Party made a statement on social media site X in response to the ruling. "This is a major victory for voters. We look forward to holding Republicans accountable to their constituents in these new, fairly-drawn districts."

• President Donald Trump (R) wrote the following statement on social media site Truth Social, “How did such a wonderful Republican State like Utah, which I won in every Election, end up with so many Radical Left Judges? All Citizens of Utah should be outraged at their activist Judiciary, which wants to take away our Congressional advantage, and will do everything possible to do so."

Overview

What is redistricting?

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Utah's four United States Representatives and 104 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

How was redistricting done in Utah?

In Utah, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the state legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor. Redistricting must be done during the legislative session immediately following the release of the results of a federal census according to Amendment D approved by voters in 2008. The next federal decennial census was scheduled to take place in 2020.

What did Proposition 4 change?

Proposition 4 was designed to create a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft maps for congressional and state legislative districts. Members are appointed by the governor and state legislative leaders. A person is not eligible to serve as a commissioner if, during the four years before appointment, he or she was a lobbyist; was a candidate for or holder of any political or elected office; received compensation from a political party, political party committee, or political action committee associated with a political party. Members are required to submit redistricting plans to the Legislature for approval or rejection. Click here to read more about the commission members. Click here to read more about the commission's process and standards for creating new maps.

Who supported and opposed Proposition 4?

Better Boundaries led the campaign in support of Proposition 4.

Ballotpedia identified one committee—Utahns for Responsive Government—registered in support of Proposition 4. The committee had reported $2.8 million in contributions and $2.8 million in expenditures. The largest donor was the Action Now Initiative, which gave $1.12 million.

Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered to oppose Proposition 4.

What other states had independent redistricting commissions?

As of 2018, four states had an independent commission to conduct redistricting the state's U.S. House districts: Washington, Idaho, California, and Arizona. Six states had an independent commission to conduct redistricting for state House and Senate districts: Alaska, California, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.

Why was Proposition 4 on the ballot?

Following the completion of Utah's redistricting process, Republicans and Democrats began investigating the conduct of their respective political rivals. Both parties filed a Government Records Access and Management Act request, seeking communications regarding the redistricting process. This information, said Republicans, revealed that Democratic lawmakers worked behind the scenes to determine the political impact of redistricting proposals. The GOP called the actions hypocritical in light of Democratic calls for greater transparency. Democrats, however, argued that their actions were primarily defensive and were aimed at combating shady tactics on the part of state Republicans. Click here to read more about the redistricting processes in Utah in 2010 and the partisan conflicts that ensued.

What other states had redistricting measures on the ballot in 2018?

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot

In 2018, voters decided six ballot measures in five states designed to change how congressional districts, state legislative districts, or both types are drawn following the decennial U.S. Census. As of 2018, six was the highest number of redistricting-related ballot measures in a single year since 1982, when nine measures were on the ballot. Joshua Silver, CEO of the organization Represent.Us, described the measures as "the best reform map we’ve seen in decades." The ballot measures followed the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous dismissal of the case Gill v. Whitford, which addressed the claim of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin. In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing. Therefore, the justices did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims can be brought to trial under the U.S. Constitution. The following measures were on the ballot in 2018:

Measure	Description	Status
Colorado Amendment Y	Create an independent commission for congressional districts	Approved a
Colorado Amendment Z	Create an independent commission for state legislative districts	Approved a
Michigan Proposal 2	Create an independent commission for congressional and state legislative districts	Approved a
Missouri Amendment 1	Create the position of state demographer to draw state legislative districts	Approved a
Ohio Issue 1	Change state legislative requirements to approve maps of congressional districts	Approved a
Utah Proposition 4	Create an independent commission for to recommend congressional and state legislative districts	Approved a

Measure design

Proposition 4 was designed to create a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft maps for congressional and state legislative districts.

Commission members

The commission was designed to be composed of seven members, as follows:

• One appointed by the governor, to serve as the chair of the commission;
• One appointed by the president of the Utah Senate;
• One appointed by the speaker of the Utah House of Representatives;
• One appointed by the leader of the largest minority political party in the Utah Senate;
• One appointed by the leader of the largest minority political party in the Utah House of Representatives;
• One appointed jointly by the leadership of the majority political party in the Utah Senate, president of the Utah Senate, and the leadership of the same political party in the Utah House of Representatives; and
• One appointed jointly by the leadership of the largest minority political party in the Utah Senate, and the leadership of the same political party in the Utah House of Representatives, including the speaker of the House, if the speaker is a member of the same political party.

A person is not eligible to serve as a commissioner if, during the four years before appointment, he or she:

• was a lobbyist;
• was a candidate for or holder of any political or elected office; or
• received compensation from a political party, political party committee, or political action committee associated with a political party.

In addition, the qualifications for two commissioners—the ones appointed jointly by the leadership of the two largest political parties in the legislature—exclude the following:

• anyone who was affiliated with any political party,
• anyone who voted in any political party's regular primary election or municipal primary election; or
• anyone who served as a delegate to a political party convention.

Process and standards for designing new maps

Those with the authority to appoint members to the commission are required to appoint members at least 30 days after the state Legislature receives the decennial U.S. census report. The commission are required to select between one and three plans, with the vote of at least five members, to submit to the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court. The chief justice is responsible for determining if the commission's plans meet redistricting standards. The commission will then forward the plans to the Utah State Legislature, which may decide whether to accept, amend, or reject the plans.

Proposition 4 was designed to establish standards for the redistricting process in the following order of priority:

(a) adhering to federal law and achieving equal population between districts;

(b) minimizing divisions of municipalities and counties across multiple districts;

(c) making districts geographically compact;

(d) making districts that are contiguous and allow for ease of transport throughout the district;

(e) preserving traditional neighborhoods and local communities of interest;

(f) following natural and geographic boundaries, barriers, and features; and

(g) maximizing the agreement of boundaries between different types of districts.

Proposition 4 prohibited the redistricting commission from dividing districts to favor an incumbent elected official, a candidate, or a political party. Proposition 4 also required the commission to use "judicial standards and the best available data and scientific and statistical methods" to draft maps.

Public hearings and involvement

Proposition 4 required the commission to establish and maintain a website or electronic platform to communicate with the public and make public all of the plans submitted to the commission, and also to allow the public to submit redistricting plans and comments to the commission. The commission is required to hold public hearings and make available recordings of commission meetings and hearings under Proposition 4.

Legislative rejection

Although the Legislature can reject maps submitted by the commission, the Legislature would then need to to submit its own proposed map which would need to meet the same standards of a map drawn by the independent redistricting commission.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 4 was as follows:

“

Shall a law be enacted to: create a seven-member commission to recommend redistricting plans to the Legislature that divide the state into Congressional, legislative, and state school board districts; provide for appointments to that commission: one by the Governor, three by legislative majority party leaders, and three by legislative minority party leaders; provide qualifications for commission members, including limitations on their political activity; require the Legislature to enact or reject a commission-recommended plan; and establish requirements for redistricting plans and authorize lawsuits to block implementation of a redistricting plan enacted by the Legislature that fails to conform to those requirements?

”

Impartial analysis

The impartial analysis for Proposition 4 was as follows:

“ Background The state is divided into different types of districts for electing different officers. There are districts for electing representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives, districts for electing members to the Utah Legislature, and districts for electing representatives to the State Board of Education. Under federal constitutional law requiring one person’s voting power to be roughly the same as another person’s, each type of district is required to have at least a roughly equal population as each other district of that type. Every 10 years, the federal government conducts a census to count the population of each state. During the 10-year period from one census to the next, the population of the state shifts, resulting in unequal populations within the various districts. Following each census, the Legislature redefines the boundaries of those districts to ensure roughly equal populations within the districts. This redefining of district boundaries is commonly referred to as “redistricting.” Proposition 4 Proposition 4 affects redistricting in Utah in three main ways: (1) it creates a seven-member appointed commission to participate in the process of formulating redistricting plans; (2) it imposes requirements on the Legislature’s redistricting process; and (3) it establishes standards with which redistricting plans must comply. 1. Redistricting Commission Current Law The Utah Constitution states that “the Legislature shall divide the state” into districts. Current Utah law does not provide for the involvement of a commission or any other group in the redistricting process. Effect of Proposition 4 Proposition 4 creates the “Utah Independent Redistricting Commission,” with responsibility to recommend redistricting plans to the Legislature. The redistricting commission consists of seven members. One member is appointed by each of the following: the governor; the president of the Utah Senate; the speaker of the Utah House of Representatives; the leader of the largest minority political party in the Utah Senate; the leader of the largest minority political party in the Utah House of Representatives; Utah Senate and House leadership of the political party that is the majority party in the Utah Senate; and Utah Senate and House leadership of the political party that is the largest minority party in the Utah Senate. Under Proposition 4, a person may not be appointed to the commission if the person has engaged in certain political activity during the four or, in some cases, five years before appointment. The Proposition also places limitations on certain political activity of commission members during their service on the commission and for four years afterwards. Proposition 4 establishes a process for the commission to follow in recommending redistricting plans. Among other things, the Proposition requires the commission to: make redistricting plans available to the public and hold public hearings; and assess whether redistricting plans comply with standards established by Proposition 4. If the commission fails to submit redistricting plans to the Legislature by a specified deadline, the Utah Supreme Court chief justice is required to select plans for the commission to submit. 2. Legislature’s Redistricting Process Current Law Under current law, the Legislature performs redistricting according to a process it defines internally, with no limitations or requirements imposed by state law. The Legislature’s past redistricting process has included opportunities for the public to submit redistricting plans, a legislative redistricting committee to adopt redistricting standards and recommend plans, the posting of plans on the Legislature’s website, and public hearings around the state. Effect of Proposition 4 Proposition 4 places requirements on the process that the Legislature uses to enact redistricting plans, including limits on when and the circumstances under which the Legislature may enact a redistricting plan. Proposition 4 requires the Legislature to enact or reject a plan that the commission submits but does not limit the Legislature from enacting its own separate plan. The commission may require a plan being considered by the Legislature to undergo a commission assessment to determine whether it complies with standards established by the Proposition. If the Legislature enacts a plan other than one submitted by the commission, the Proposition requires the Legislature to publicly issue a detailed written report explaining why. 3. Standards Applicable to Redistricting Plans Current Law Redistricting plans enacted by the Legislature are required to comply with certain provisions of federal law, including a requirement that districts have roughly equal populations. Utah law does not specify additional standards with which redistricting plans must comply. Effect of Proposition 4 Proposition 4 requires commission-recommended or Legislature-enacted redistricting plans, as much as possible, to: minimize the division of counties, cities, and towns; create districts that are geographically compact and in one unbroken piece; preserve traditional neighborhoods and local communities; follow natural and geographic features; and maximize boundary agreement among different types of districts. The Proposition also prohibits the commission or Legislature from favoring or disfavoring incumbent elected officials or from considering partisan political information. The Proposition authorizes any Utah resident to file a lawsuit requesting a court to block implementation of a redistricting plan enacted by the Legislature that fails to conform to the standards and requirements established by Proposition 4. Potential Constitutional Conflicts Proposition 4 raises the following potential conflicts with the United States Constitution or Utah Constitution: restricting former commission members from engaging in certain political activity after serving on the commission may conflict with freedom of speech and association guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and similar guarantees under Article I, Sections 1 and 15 of the Utah Constitution; directing the Utah Supreme Court chief justice to select redistricting plans to recommend to the Legislature may violate separation of powers principles under Article V, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution; and requiring redistricting plans enacted by the Legislature to comply with certain standards and imposing other restrictions on the Legislature’s redistricting process may violate Article IX, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution. ”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement for Proposition 4 was as follows:

“

The legislative fiscal analyst estimates that implementing Proposition 4 may cost the state $1,015,500 every 10 years for commission and other redistricting-related expenses. The state may incur additional costs to defend lawsuits authorized by the Proposition.

”

Full text

The full text of the initiative is available here.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is 17. The word count for the ballot title is 102, and the estimated reading time is 27 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 22.5. The word count for the ballot summary is 940, and the estimated reading time is 4 minutes and 10 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Better Boundaries is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 4. Better Boundaries is chaired by the following people:

• Jeff Wright (R), former Utah Department of Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner and Actium Partners Chairman;
• Ralph Becker (D), Former Salt Lake City Mayor;
• Blake Moore (R) of the Cicero Group; and
• Karen Shepherd (D), former U.S. Congresswoman.

Supporters

The Better Boundaries campaign website listed the following endorsements:

Organizations AARP Utah Action Now Initiative American Association of University Women (SLC) American Civil Liberties Union Represent US Serve American Movement (SAM) UT League of Women Voters Utah Citizens’ Counsel Individuals Fred C. Adams Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) John A. Adams Kari Adams Lisa Ramsey Adams Ron Allen Sheryl Allen McKenna Allred Karen Alston Spencer Alston Scott Anderson Camille Anthony Archie Archuleta Patrice Marla Arent Anna Arevalo Karma Arnold Genevieve Atwood N. Jeffrey Baker Austin Bankhead Christine Barker Bruce Wayne Bastian Deborah Bayle Terry Becker Lydia Berggren Peter Billings Turner Christopher Bitton Stephanie Black Deborah Blackburn Diane Little Blackburn Carol Blackwell John Gregory Bloom Brent Bowen Jim E. Bradley Lisa Miller Browdy Cynthia Buckingham Andy Wallace Buffmire Jay Grisel Bundy Gayle Burtenshaw Rick Burtenshaw Betsy Burton Kit Burton Jean Marie Canestrini Beverly Bullock Carlson Alexander Castagno Philip Castle Tim Chambless Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck Holly Christensen Paul Christenson Erik Christiansen Heather Clarkson Kathryn Clifford Aileen Clyde Craig Coburn Dave Combs Carolyn Connell Rebecca Cooley Cameron Alston Cova Dale Cox Gordon Crabtree Joe Cronley Ryan Dale Curtis Eric Czech Michael Davison Becky Day Candace Dee Thomas Dee Greta Dejong Pamela Dennison Jeannie DePaulis Palmer DePaulis Kenwyn Derby Kathleen Digre Stan Drasutis Pamela Dropek Richard Dropek Emily Drown Randy Dryer Bobby Edwards Travis Ehlinger Kevin Michael Emerson Peggy Evans Katherine Ferguson Bonnie Lynn Fernandez Darleen Perris Fink Patrick Fliming Ann Florence Karen S. Fouad Craig French Steve Gandre Katharine B. Garff Amy Garfield William Garrett Doug Gaskill Ennis Gibbs Robert Gilchrist Alejandro Giraldo Alison Godlewski Tom Goldsmith Diane J. Gunnell John Haglund Carl Hancock Sydney Hansen Nolan Harris Peter Haug Steven Haws Lex Hemphill Lyn Hinckley Nancy Hobbs Phyllis Hockett Paul Hollingshaus Dixie Snow Huefner Robert P. Huefner Bill L. Hunt Greta Hyland Carolyn Tanner Irish Loren Israelsen Jerry Jarvis Nathan Jellen Monty Jensen Nicholas Jensen Charlie Johnson Jeffrey Johnson Paul Johnson Brian Jones Pat Jones Taylor Jones Jen Joslin Kirk Jowers Brittany Jursik Angel Kallas Michael Alan Kalm Richard Elliot Kanner Rochelle Susan Kaplan James Marie Kelly Steven Kelty Rep. Brian King Cory Kinservik Robert Kubichek John Lair Lorraine Lakey Ben Lariviere Scott Leckman Helane Leta Bruce Lindsay David Livermore William Lockhart Ravell Lott Thomas Milton Love Jennifer Luft Laura Lunceford Connie Madden Calvin Makelky Kavindra Malik Garrett Manion Courtney Claire Marden Tina Marler Jane Marquardt Tami Marquardt Bill Martin Norma Matheson Deborah Matticks Daniel C. Mattis Michael Mattsson David May Robert Mayer Mary McCarthey Tom McCarthey Erin McClade Paula A. McFarland Rush McGraw William C. McGregor Nancy McHugh Jerilyn McIntyre Liz McOmber Robert Mecklenburg Nancy Melich Susan Meyer Monique Milius Bob Miller Bonnie Miller Jeff Miller John Edward Miller Kathie Miller Mark Miller Pamela Miller Randy Miller Anne Milliken John Milliken David T. Minix Jeanette Misaka Amanda Jane Mitchell Amanda Montoya Barry Moore Norma Morgan Elyce Mouskondis Matthew Movsesian Ariel D. Mumma Kinde Nebeker Austin Neff Eric Neff Nicola Nelson L. Jackson Newell Linda King Newell William K. Nichols Shannon Patrick O'Neal John Ogilvie William Ohlsen Margaret D. Olsen Terry Orme Melinda Orms

Arguments

• On their website, Better Boundaries argues:

“

Utah’s current redistricting process requires reform because it allows incumbent politicians to manipulate the redistricting process by selecting the people who vote for them, without appropriate checks. This has resulted in less competitive races and politicians who prioritize their own interests over the needs of their constituents. The Better Boundaries campaign aims to create a more responsive, transparent and accountable redistricting process. The purpose of redistricting should be to redraw political boundaries to better align with population shifts (i.e., to ensure the “one person, one vote” principle).

”

• Co-chair of the Better Boundaries Coalition said, "We believe that voters should be picking their politicians and not the other way around, that is the politicians picking their voters."

• Peter Carroon, the chair of the Utah State Democratic Party and former mayor of Salt Lake County, said, "We are essentially urban areas that lose their voice under this kind of gerrymandering. What happens is, because we’re so lopsided politically, even if a Democrat wins in one of those districts, their legislative policies have to be so much focused on the rural areas.”

• Jeff Wright, a co-char of the Better Boundaries Coalition and former Utah Department of Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner, said, “This is a bipartisan issue because, while the last redistricting and gerrymandering here in Utah benefited the party I support, in many other states it goes against the party I support. To avoid mutual assured destruction across the country, we need to have independent commissions.”

• The CEO of the Serve America Movement, Sarah Lenti, said, "Redistricting reform is one of our key electoral reform priorities. It is time to do away with the partisan gerrymandering that has led to increased political polarization and allows politicians to choose their voters."

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted by Uthans for Responsive Government/Better Boundaries in favor of Proposition 4:

“ Voters should choose their representatives, not vice versa. Yet under current law, Utah politicians can choose their voters. Legislators draw their own legislative districts with minimal transparency, oversight, or checks on inherent conflicts of interest. As a result, politicians wield unbridled power to design districts to ensure their own re-election. This is called “gerrymandering.” Gerrymandering is not new. But in recent years it has gotten out of control. Sophisticated computer modeling allows incumbents to craft districts with a precision the framers of the Utah Constitution could not have foreseen. Incumbents of both parties do this, with the result that Utah is divided into districts that empower politicians, not voters. For example, Holladay City is splintered into four State House districts, two State Senate districts and two Congressional districts. Who benefits from this? Holladay voters don’t, but politicians do. Incumbents in safe districts are less responsive to voters and more responsive to special interests. In short, gerrymandering makes representative democracy less representative. To be fair, we can’t expect legislators to fix the system. It benefits them. We the People must fix it. Proposition 4 returns power to the voters and puts people first in our political system. It does this by enacting the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and Standards Act. The Act addresses the problem of gerrymandering in two ways. First, it creates a seven-member Independent Redistricting Commission. The Governor and Legislative leaders appoint the Commissioners, at least two of whom must be politically unaffiliated. To promote impartiality, lobbyists, current and recently retired elected officials, political party leaders, and government appointees may not serve as Commissioners. With citizen input, the Commission draws proposed district boundaries for Utah’s congressional, legislative, and State school board districts. It then submits these electoral maps to the Legislature as required by the Utah Constitution. The Legislature can enact or reject the Commission’s proposed maps. If it rejects them, it must explain why to the citizens. Second, the Act requires that, in drawing districts, the Commission and the Legislature abide by common-sense redistricting standards to the greatest extent practicable. These standards include: Adhering to the U.S. and Utah Constitutions and other applicable law Preserving equal populations among districts Keeping municipalities and counties together Creating districts that are compact and contiguous Respecting traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest Following geographic features and natural barriers Most importantly, the Act forbids drawing districts to unduly favor or disfavor any incumbent, candidate, or political party. And it allows Utah voters to challenge a map enacted by the Legislature that violates these standards. By placing common-sense limits on politicians’ power to design their districts, Proposition 4 will ensure that our representative government serves people, not politicians. It will make the redistricting process more transparent, increase voter participation, and make the politicians we elect more responsive and accountable to the people who elect them. In short, it will ensure that Utah voters have a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. ”

Click [show] to see the rebuttal to the official opposition argument

“ Utah voters should not be surprised that the statement against Proposition 4 comes from a politician. Politicians are the only folks that benefit from gerrymandering. The current system presents a clear conflict of interest. The opposition statement is also misleading; let’s focus on the facts. First, Proposition 4 is a bi-partisan effort, led by members of both major parties. Over 190,000 Utahns from all across the State signed the petition, and polling shows that a majority of Utahns support it. Second, Utahns overwhelmingly support Proposition 4 because it creates a transparent process. It favors no party or outcome. It merely creates sensible rules so that no one can rig the system. Third, the State Constitution does not say our Legislature has “exclusive” authority to draw electoral maps. Proposition 4 is carefully designed to operate within the framework established by the Utah and U.S. Constitutions. Fourth, the speculation that this Proposition will encourage litigation is misleading. Proposition 4 enacts common-sense redistricting standards. A map that respects those standards is unlikely to provoke baseless litigation, especially since the initiative also contains provisions to discourage frivolous lawsuits. The fight against gerrymandering is about patriotism, not party. Ronald Reagan called gerrymandering an “unAmerican practice” contrary to “American values of fair play and decency.” That’s why 18 other states have adopted some form of an independent redistricting commission. We need to end gerrymandering here in Utah once and for all. Don’t be distracted by misleading statements and scare tactics. Vote for Proposition 4. ”

Opposition

Arguments

• Utah House Speaker Greg Hughes (R-51) said in a statement, “Legislators are elected by the citizens of this state to perform specific duties detailed in the Utah Constitution and redistricting is a fundamental duty of the Legislature. [...] The purpose of this process is to have an open and a public discussion, gather input and come to a consensus based on information and research through a bipartisan committee that puts recommendations before the entire legislative body. An initiative to create an advisory committee does not override or bypass the Constitution simply because some may not like the outcome."

• Rep. Lowry Snow (R-74) said, “I understand the concerns with redistricting but I am concerned about utilizing that (ballot initiative) process.”

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted by Sen. Ralph Okerlund (R-24) in opposition to Proposition 4:

“ Proposition 4 is a cleverly disguised partisan plan to stifle the voice of the people of Utah as represented by the Legislature and unconstitutionally create an overwhelmingly Democrat congressional district around Salt Lake City. Violates the Constitution Inspired by the framers of our United States Constitution, the founders of Utah divided governmental power into three separate branches of government – the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. The founders thought it was important to grant the legislature the exclusive authority over the redistricting process. Proposition 4 blatantly violates the Utah Constitution by creating a redistricting commission and granting that commission and the Utah Supreme Court a role in the redistricting process. If we, as citizens of Utah, wish to grant this legislative authority to other branches of government, we must do it through a constitutional amendment not an initiative petition. The Perfect Legal Storm Over the past few redistricting cycles there have been hundreds of redistricting lawsuits in at least 40 states. In that time, not a single successful case has been brought against Utah due to our transparent, fair, and strictly constitutional redistricting process. Proposition 4 deliberately imposes vague and conflicting redistricting requirements, it leaves multiple key terms undefined, and it grants any person or business with a Utah address the right to legally challenge redistricting plans. These provisions reveal the obvious underlying goal of this initiative is to create a perfect legal storm for lengthy lawsuits that result in the courts unconstitutionally redrawing district boundaries. Better Boundaries for Whom? District boundaries are redrawn by the legislature every ten years following the census to ensure that every district is represented by the same number of people. Because Utah’s population is growing – the growth in each district must be averaged out. This means slower growing districts must have boundaries that expand, while the surrounding faster growing districts must have boundaries that shrink. This is precisely what is happening in and around Salt Lake City. Due to their significantly slower population growth rates, district boundaries around Salt Lake City must expand to gain population while the surrounding districts shrink to average out. Despite being their last strong-hold in the state, it is inevitable that these current growth patterns will continue to water-down Democrat representation. Faced with this fact, proponents of Proposition 4 are desperately trying to maintain and even increase their representation by creating an overwhelmingly Democrat district insulated from the rest of the state. Appropriately named by its Salt Lake City Democrat supporters, the “Better Boundaries Initiative,” begs the question: better boundaries for whom? Themselves. Conclusion Make no mistake about it, the backers of this initiative are not seeking to create a transparent, fair, and constitutionally sound redistricting process – we already have that. They are seeking to unconstitutionally pack what is now a competitive congressional district with Democrat voters to create a single, safe, and solidly Democrat congressional district for themselves. Do not be fooled. Vote against Proposition 4. ”

Click [show] to see the rebuttal to the official support argument

“ Proposition 4 sponsors’ best argument seems to be that giving an unelected commission authority in the redistricting process will result in a more accountable government. If that is true, it must be done by a constitutional amendment and not by an initiative petition. In 2011 the legislative redistricting committee held over thirty public, open, and transparent meetings throughout the state. They received and considered hundreds of public comments and even provided a dedicated website for citizens to draw, submit, and comment on maps. Backed by Ralph Becker and other liberal Salt Lake City Democrats and funded by out of state interest groups, Proposition 4 is a cleverly disguised partisan power grab. It unconstitutionally gives redistricting authority to unelected bureaucrats and judges. It deliberately imposes vague and conflicting redistricting requirements to throw the doors wide open for lawsuits. 4 out of 5 of its sponsors are liberal Democrats from Salt Lake City (if you include the one who became Republican right before sponsoring). 70% of the nearly $1 Million behind the initiative are from OUT OF STATE special interest groups. Over half of the in-state donations came from inside of Salt Lake City proper. The framers of the Utah Constitution ensured that redistricting would be anchored in the voice of the people by exclusively entrusting this authority to the legislature. A vote for Proposition 4 is a vote to unconstitutionally silence the voice of the majority of people in Utah and allow unelected bureaucrats and judges redistricting authority ”

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Salt Lake Tribune said: "After the 2020 federal census, Utah will draw new districts for its state Senate, state House and our four (or maybe more) members of the U.S House of Representatives. In past years, the process has been less a serious consideration of numbers and communities and fairness and mostly a partisan political, and sometimes just personal, act by which state legislators draw maps to advantage their party generally and some of their colleagues specifically. That’s not democracy. That’s gerrymandering... [Utah Propositions 2, 3, and 4] individually and collectively, stand to improve both our quality of life and our democratic institutions. The voters should give them their resounding assent."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in opposition to Proposition 4. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Utah ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified one committee—Utahns for Responsive Government—registered in support of Proposition 4. The committee had reported $2.8 million in contributions and $2.8 million in expenditures. The largest donor was the Action Now Initiative, which gave $1.12 million.

Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered to oppose Proposition 4.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$2,595,178.86	$203,764.58	$2,798,943.44	$2,565,408.18	$2,769,172.76
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$2,595,178.86	$203,764.58	$2,798,943.44	$2,565,408.18	$2,769,172.76

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 4
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Utahns for Responsive Government	$2,595,178.86	$203,764.58	$2,798,943.44	$2,565,408.18	$2,769,172.76
Total	$2,595,178.86	$203,764.58	$2,798,943.44	$2,565,408.18	$2,769,172.76

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Action Now Initiative	$967,000.36	$156,500.00	$1,123,500.36
Michael Weinholtz	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00
Campaign for Democracy	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
SEIU - United Healthcare Workers	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Bruce Bastian	$60,000.00	$0.00	$60,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2018 ballot measure polls

A poll conducted by Dan Jones & Associates from August 22 to August 31, 2018, asked 809 likely Utah voters the following question:

“

Do you support or oppose creating a bipartisan/nonpartisan commission to draw the U.S. House, state Senate and House, and State School Board district boundaries, and require the Legislature to vote up or down the redistricting, but not change it?

”

The results are shown below:

Utah Proposition 4, Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Don't know	Margin of error	Sample size
Dan Jones & Associates 8/22/2018 - 8/31/2018	52.0%	18.0%	30.0%	+/-3.4	809
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Utah

Click the above image to enlarge it.
Source: The National Atlas of the United States of America

Utah comprises four congressional districts. The map to the right depicts Utah's congressional district lines as drawn following the 2010 United States Census.

Demographics

See also: Demographics of congressional districts as of 2015 and Demographics of congressional districts as of 2015 (as percentages)

The tables below provide demographic information for each of Utah's congressional districts as of 2015. At that time, the population of the largest congressional district, Utah's 4th Congressional District, totaled 762,014, and the population of the smallest, Utah's 1st Congressional District, totaled 740,397, which represented a difference of 2.92 percent.

Demographics of Utah's congressional districts (as percentages)
District	Hispanic or Latino of any race	White	Black or African American	American Indian and Alaska Native	Asian	Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander	Other	Multiple races
District 1, Utah	12.91%	81.35%	0.96%	0.92%	1.34%	0.27%	0.06%	2.19%
District 2, Utah	15.29%	76.70%	1.12%	0.73%	2.92%	1.10%	0.13%	1.99%
District 3, Utah	10.25%	82.38%	0.53%	1.62%	2.07%	0.61%	0.08%	2.46%
District 4, Utah	16.12%	75.34%	1.70%	0.69%	2.75%	1.15%	0.09%	2.15%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "American Fact Finder: 2015 1-year estimates," accessed May 23, 2017

State legislative maps

See also: Utah State Senate and Utah House of Representatives

Utah comprises 29 state Senate districts and 75 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the current state legislative district maps, click here.

Redistricting in Utah

In Utah, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the state legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor. Redistricting must be done during the legislative session immediately following the release of the results of a federal census according to Amendment D approved by voters in 2008. In 2011, the state legislature adopted guidelines for both congressional and state legislative redistricting. These guidelines recommended that all districts be "contiguous and reasonably compact." These guidelines may be amended by the legislature at its discretion.

Going into the election, district lines were redrawn every 10 years. Following the 2010 United States Census, Utah was apportioned four congressional seats. Going into the election, the Utah State Legislature was responsible for congressional and state legislative redistricting. Redistricting plans are proposed and passed like ordinary legislation. As such, the Governor of Utah may veto any redistricting plan.

Redistricting in Utah after the 2010 census

In Utah, the Joint Redistricting Committee of the Utah Legislature drafts district boundaries. That committee, selected by Speaker of the House Rebecca Lockhart and Senate President Michael Waddoups in April 2011, held 18 hearings around the state. In the fall the legislature convened in a special session to pass the new maps.

Three of these members, Biskupski, Waddoups, and Davis, also sat on the 2001 committee. Once named, the membership came under fire for failing to include any non-whites, in a state where 20% of the residents are Hispanic.

Efforts to transition to a citizen populated commission had not been successful, but continued in the hopes of making such a change for the 2020 Census and 2021 redistricting. A Democratic bid to include attention to communities of interest also failed to make it into the final guidelines for redistricting.

The state legislature approved Senate Bill 3002, which contained the latest congressional district lines, and the governor signed it into law on October 20, 2011. In 2011, the legislature passed House Bill 3001 and Senate Bill 3001, which contained the state legislative district maps, and the governor signed them into law on October 19, 2011, and October 20, 2011, respectively. In January 2012, the legislature passed bills—Senate Bill 125 and House Bill 286—amending the district maps passed in 2011.

Partisan conflict during 2010 redistricting process

Following the completion of Utah's redistricting process, Republicans and Democrats began investigating the conduct of their respective political rivals. Both parties filed a Government Records Access and Management Act request, seeking communications regarding the redistricting process. Although Democrats were still fighting over fees associated with the request (as of December 11, 2011), Republicans had obtained over 1,000 pages of information. This information, said Republicans, revealed that Democratic lawmakers worked behind the scenes to determine the political impact of redistricting proposals. The GOP called the actions hypocritical in light of Democratic calls for greater transparency. Democrats, however, argued that their actions were primarily defensive and were aimed at combating shady tactics on the part of state Republicans.

Senate Minority Leader Ross Romero, a Salt Lake Democrat, ran a bill in 2010 that would have created an independent redistricting committee; his effort did not survive its first committee hearing. Republicans, who had a comfortable majority in the state, pointed to the legislature's sole responsibility for redistricting under the Utah Constitution. Senator Romero's colleague, Senate President Michael Waddoups, also scoffed at the idea of anyone being unaffected enough by the redistricting process as to be free from biases. In early February 2011, the Utah Citizens Council, headed by former member of the State Board of Regents Aileen Clyde, called publicly to dissolve the legislature's redistricting power. The gain of a seat, the strong partisan flavor of the state, and the still-palpable taste of 2001's gerrymandering all bolstered the push for such an independent body.

Fair Boundaries initiative

A citizen-initiated petition drive to put an item on the November ballot for switching control of redistricting to a citizen commission failed in the spring of 2011. With a March 17, 2011 deadline to turn in 95,000 signatures, the effort, led by Glenn Wright, only amassed 50,000 before running out of time.

Methods of redistricting in U.S.

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Procedures for congressional redistricting in the U.S.

Most states are required to draw new congressional district lines every 10 years following completion of United States Census (those states comprising one congressional district are not required to redistrict). In 37 of these states, state legislatures were primarily responsible for redistricting as of May 2018. In four states, independent commissions drew congressional district lines. In two states, politician commissions drew the lines. The remaining states comprised one congressional district each, rendering redistricting unnecessary. See the map below for further details.

Procedures for state legislative redistricting in the U.S.

In 37 of the 50 states, state legislatures were primarily responsible for state legislative redistricting as of August 2017. Independent commissions drew state legislative district lines in six states. In seven states, politician commissions were responsible for state legislative redistricting. See the map and table below for further details.

Election policy on the ballot in 2018

Electoral system
Electoral systems by state
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
Academic studies on RCV
Election dates
Election agencies
Election terms
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.

Redistricting:

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot

• Ohio Issue 1, Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment (May 2018) a - The Ohio State Legislature, through a bipartisan vote, referred Issue 1 to the ballot for the election on May 8, 2018. The measure was written to change the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps and the standards used in congressional redistricting in Ohio. Voters approved Issue 1.

• Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's congressional districts. Democrats and Republicans in the Colorado State Legislature voted to refer the measure. It was approved.

• Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's state House and state Senate. Democrats and Republicans in the legislature voted to refer the amendment. It was approved.

• Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018) a - The organization Voters Not Politicians collected more than the required 315,654 signatures for the initiative. The initiative was designed to transfer the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the Michigan State Legislature to an independent redistricting commission. It was approved.

• Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The PAC Clean Missouri collected signatures to get the initiated amendment on the ballot. The measure made changes to the state's lobbying laws, campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates, and legislative redistricting process. The position of nonpartisan state demographer was created. Amendment 1 made the demographer responsible for drawing legislative redistricting maps and presenting them to the House and Senate apportionment commissions.

• Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The measure created a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft maps for congressional and state legislative districts. The committee Utahns for Responsive Government collected more than the required 113,143 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot.

Voting requirements and ballot access:

• Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - Issue 2 was designed to require individuals to present a valid photo ID to cast non-provisional ballots in person or absentee. The Arkansas State Legislature referred the measure to the ballot, with Republicans and four of 30 Democrats voting to put Issue 2 on the ballot. It was approved.

• Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) a - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.

• Louisiana Amendment 1, Felons Disqualified to Run for Office for Five Years Amendment (2018) a - This measure was put on the ballot by the state legislature. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 9 in 1998 to prevent convicted felons from seeking or holding public office for 15 years following the completion of their sentences. Amendment 9 was struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2016. It was approved.

• Maryland Question 2, Election-Day Voter Registration Amendment (2018) a - Legislative Democrats voted to place the amendment the ballot. The measure was designed to authorize a process for registering qualified individuals to vote at a precinct polling place on election day. It was approved.

• Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative (2018) a - Promote the Vote collected more than 315,654 valid signatures to get the initiative placed on the ballot. Proposal 3 was designed to add several voting policies to the Michigan Constitution, including straight-ticket voting, automatic voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day voter registration. It was approved.

• Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018) a - The Montana State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot, through the support of 80 of 91 Republicans and one of 59 Democrats. The measure was written to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. It was approved.

• Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018) a - The measure was designed to provide for the automatic voter registration of eligible citizens when receiving certain services from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Nevada Election Administration Committee, a project of iVote, collected more than the required 55,234 signatures to get Question 5 placed on the ballot. It was approved.

• North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.

• North Dakota Measure 2, Citizen Requirement for Voting Amendment Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Citizen Voting collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure was designed to clarify that only a U.S. citizen can vote in federal, state, and local elections in North Dakota. It was approved.

Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.

Campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:

• Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) d - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.

• Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative was designed to establish a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood. It was approved.

• Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - Besides the redistricting provisions of Amendment 1 described above, Missouri Amendment one also made changes to the state's lobbying laws and campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates.

• North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Public Integrity collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. Measure 1 established an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest. It was approved.

• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018) d - The committee Represent South Dakota collected more than the required 27,741 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was designed to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and enact new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It was defeated.

• South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative banned out-of-state contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures within South Dakota. Rep. Mark Mickelson (R-13), speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, sponsored the initiative. It was approved.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Utah

The state process

In Utah, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the state for presidential candidates in the previous presidential election. Petition circulation must be distributed so that signatures equal to 10 percent of votes cast for President are collected from each of at least 26 of the 29 Utah State Senate districts. Signatures must be submitted 316 days from the application date or by April 15, whichever is earliest.

The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 113,143 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was April 15, 2018. Each initiative also has an initiative-specific deadline 316 days following the initial application.

Each signature is verified by the county clerks in the county where the signature was collected. After verification, the petition forms are delivered to the lieutenant governor, who counts the total number of certified signatures and declares the petition as either sufficient or insufficient.

Details about this initiative

• The initiative petition was filed with the lieutenant governor on July 20, 2017.
• A fiscal impact statement was provided on August 21, 2017.
• Seven public hearings were held on September 1 and September 2 of 2017.
• As of 2017 year-end filings, proponents had spent $319,738 on the signature petition drive. That $319,738 was paid to the petition management company Grassroots Utah.
• Proponents of this initiative reported submitting about 190,000 signatures before the deadline on Monday, April 16, 2018.
• On May 29, 2018, the lieutenant governor certified the measure for the ballot. Proponents submitted 150,082 valid signatures and met the signature requirement thresholds in 26 of 29 state Senate districts. To qualify for the ballot, the initiative needed at least 113,143 valid signatures statewide and needed to meet signature thresholds in at least 26 of 29 state Senate districts.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Grassroots Utah to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,040,087.00 was spent to collect the 113,143 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $9.19.

Related measures on the ballot

Redistricting measures measures on the ballot in 2018
State	Measures
Michigan	Michigan Proposal 2: Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative a
Missouri	Missouri Amendment 1: Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting a
Colorado	Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment a
Ohio	Ohio Issue 1: Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment a
Colorado	Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment a

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Utah

Poll times

Utah is an all-mail voting state that offers vote centers for voters that choose to vote in person. All vote centers are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time. Utah voters are able to vote in person at any vote center. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in Utah, an applicant must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of Utah for at least 30 days prior to the election, and at least 18 years old by the next general election. Pre-registration is available for 16- and 17-year-olds. 17-year-olds may vote in primary elections if they will turn 18 by the general election. Registration can be completed online or by mailing in a form. The deadline to register online or by mail is 11 days before Election Day. After this deadline, voters may register in person at a vote center by casting a provisional ballot and providing two forms of identification.

Automatic registration

See also: Automatic voter registration

Utah does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Utah has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

See also: Same-day voter registration

Utah allows same-day voter registration at polling places during the 10 days preceding and on Election Day.

Residency requirements

Prospective voters must be residents of the state for at least 30 days before the election.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Utah does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, a person who commits fraudulent registration is "guilty of a class A misdemeanor" under Utah Code 20A-2-401.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Utah lieutenant governor’s office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Utah requires in-person voters to present non-photo identification while voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of May 2025:

“

"Valid voter identification" means: a form of identification that bears the name and photograph of the voter which may include: a currently valid Utah driver license; a currently valid identification card issued under Title 53, Chapter 3, Part 8, Identification Card Act; a currently valid identification card that is issued by: the state; or a branch, department, or agency of the United States; a currently valid Utah permit to carry a concealed weapon; a currently valid United States passport; or a currently valid United States military identification card; one of the following identification cards, regardless of whether the card includes a photograph of the voter: a valid tribal identification card; a Bureau of Indian Affairs card; or a tribal treaty card; or two forms of identification not listed under Subsection (79)(a) or (b) but that bear the name of the voter and provide evidence that the voter resides in the voting precinct, which may include: before January 1, 2029, an original or copy of a current utility bill, dated no more than 90 calendar days before the date of the election; before January 1, 2029, an original or copy of a bank or other financial account statement, dated no more than 90 calendar days before the date of the election; a certified birth certificate; a valid social security card; an original or copy of a check issued by the state or the federal government, dated no more than 90 calendar days before the date of the election; an original or copy of a paycheck from the voter's employer, dated no more than 90 calendar days before the date of the election; a currently valid Utah hunting or fishing license; certified naturalization documentation; a currently valid license issued by an authorized agency of the United States; a certified copy of court records showing the voter's adoption or name change; a valid Medicaid card, Medicare card, or Electronic Benefits Transfer Card; a currently valid identification card issued by: a local government within the state; an employer for an employee; or a college, university, technical school, or professional school located within the state; or a current Utah vehicle registration.

”

Click here for the Utah statute defining accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Redistricting measures on the ballot

Utah

• Utah ballot measures
• Utah ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Utah Lt. Governor: 2018 Statewide Ballot Questions

Support

• Better Boundaries website
• Better Boundaries Facebook
• Better Boundaries Twitter

Opposition

Email links to editor@ballotpedia.org.