Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Utah House approves 75-member redistricting plan after hours of amendment votes

Utah House of Representatives · September 26, 2001
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Utah House passed House Bill 2,001, a 75-member redistricting plan, after adopting a series of technical and map-specific amendments; members voiced process concerns and questioned Voting Rights Act compliance before the 57–18 final vote.

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives approved House Bill 2,001, a 75-member redistricting plan, after hours of debate over map lines, county boundaries and a string of amendments that lawmakers said reflected both technical fixes and political trade-offs.

Representative Jerry Adair, sponsor of the House plan, told colleagues the proposal had been shaped by committee work and public input and urged members to back a single plan that could carry the state forward for a decade. "We need to put our self interest aside and vote for this and go on with the process," Adair said in his final summation.

The floor considered multiple amendments that altered district boundaries across the state. Representative Brent Goodfellow proposed Amendment A5 to shift an open seat and redistribute Summit County population into districts 41 and 49; after questioning about travel access to canyon communities and political effects, the amendment failed on a roll-call, 23 yes to 48 no. Representative Doug Cox later moved Amendment 12 to return a precinct to American Fork so the city would be more whole; that amendment was initially defeated, reconsidered and ultimately adopted on reconsideration (a recorded vote was later reported as 45 yes, 28 no).

Other contested changes affected southeastern Utah and Salt Lake County. Representative King’s package returned Moab to a single district in one proposal; the House split a combined motion and approved Amendment A8 while rejecting A15. In Salt Lake County, Representative Bigelow’s Amendment A6 — the product of extensive overnight work, supporters said — passed after extended debate about the balance between communities-of-interest and political disruption. Representative Bigelow argued the amendment represented the best workable map for the county after lengthy review.

Several members criticized the process. Representative Derr warned the House lacked the Census minority-data needed to determine whether the map complied with "the requirements of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," saying, "We have to we can't know if we are complying with the requirements of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act unless we have some understanding of that data." Adair and other supporters said they relied on committee review and public input but did not offer new Census minority-data on the floor.

Lawmakers also approved a set of technical cleanups. Representative Becker’s Amendment 10 clarified a boundary near City Creek Canyon and adjusted lines between Salt Lake and Davis counties with no population impact, which Becker said "cleans up the map" and "minimizes impacts on long-standing traditional neighborhoods."

The House adopted several bundled technical amendments (Amendments 3, 4 and 9) covering small corrections in Iron, Weber and Great Salt Lake precinct lines, and later formally placed explanatory intent language in the House Journal to coordinate maps referenced in competing amendments.

Final passage of House Bill 2,001 came by roll-call: the bill passed the House 57–18 and was referred to the Senate for further consideration. After completing redistricting business, the House agreed to adjourn until 9 a.m. Monday, Oct. 1; the adjournment motion carried 41–32.

The debate highlighted recurring tensions in redistricting: balancing compactness and communities of interest, minimizing disruption for incumbents and small cities, and ensuring legal compliance. Several representatives urged colleagues to weigh constituent interests over partisan advantage, while others said political realities and population shifts inevitably shape outcomes.

What happens next: the House-passed plan is sent to the Senate for consideration and any Senate amendments will be transmitted back to the House. Lawmakers on the floor did not provide new, floor-level Census minority-data that would resolve Section 2 compliance questions before the House vote.

Vote-at-a-glance: Amendment A5 — failed (23 yes, 48 no); Amendments 3, 4 and 9 — adopted (substitute motion); Amendment A8 — passed; Amendment A15 — failed; Amendment A6 — adopted; Amendment 10 — passed; Amendment 12 — ultimately adopted on reconsideration; Final passage HB 2,001 — passed 57 yes, 18 no.

The House debate and votes, including direct questions about Voting Rights Act compliance and repeated technical fixes, leave open whether the adopted lines will face legal challenges or further modification in the Senate.