Utah House debates multiple substitute maps for Senate Bill 3002 amid public‑process complaints

Representative Assumption opened floor debate on Senate Bill 3,002, the congressional‑boundaries bill the Senate sent to the House, calling the Senate ‘base map’ “a compromise of many of the issues” gathered during months of committee travel and public hearings. The sponsor said the base map keeps Salt Lake City whole while drawing a new District 4 that runs west from the Wasatch Front into Tooele and parts of Washington and Iron counties.

Members immediately expressed disagreement over the shape and process. Representative Cox said she was not in favor of the Senate version and moved the fourteenth substitute, which she described as a bipartisan map that keeps many counties and cities whole and splits Salt Lake County along the I‑15 corridor. Representative King offered a competing fifteenth substitute, a modification of a citizen‑drawn “Garber” map circulated to legislators the previous Thursday; King described his version as a way to preserve an urban–rural mix while minimizing county splits.

Lawmakers pressed sponsors on two overlapping issues: map geometry and process. Members from rural districts repeatedly warned that concentrating representation on the Wasatch Front risks ignoring rural interests tied to public lands, agriculture and energy production. Several urban representatives warned against dividing Salt Lake City and said some maps treated the capital city as “pocket change.” Other members criticized the timing and notice of recent modifications: opponents said a Garber‑derived map posted online only hours earlier had not received the same public review as prior committee maps.

The floor also debated how many citizen maps had been submitted; sponsors and members gave inconsistent counts on the record while acknowledging dozens — and in some remarks 'over 100' — had been reviewed. Representative Menlo asked specifically about public input from meetings in West Jordan, Park City and Moab; the sponsor said the committee had considered those comments when shaping the base map.

Debate produced a procedural sequence of substitute motions. Representative King’s motion to adopt the fifteenth substitute was put to a division (recorded) vote and failed, with the Speaker announcing 21 yes and 50 no. The body then returned to Representative Cox’s fourteenth substitute while Representative Newbold offered a seventeenth substitute, also described as Garber‑derived, which proponents said reduces county splits and keeps most cities whole. Members continued to voice both policy and process concerns.

On process, the minority leader warned members and the public that the newly posted modification could appear to be “a ploy” and said it had not gone through the same public review or been vetted with the minority caucus. Other legislators told colleagues they felt disenfranchised by a process in which a small committee of members had decided many map elements prior to a full‑body vote.

Faced with continuing disagreement, Representative D. moved to 'circle' the bill (pause floor action so members could caucus); the motion passed and the bill was formally circled for later consideration. The House proceeded to a procedural motion to 'saunter' and adjourned.

Votes at a glance: the motion to uncircle SB3002 succeeded unanimously earlier in the session; Representative King’s motion to adopt the fifteenth substitute failed on a recorded division, 21 yes to 50 no. Several other substitute motions were offered and debated on the floor; their final disposition was unresolved at the close of the session, which ended after members circled the bill.

What happens next: the bill was circled for future consideration, meaning lawmakers paused floor action to confer in caucus; floor sponsors and opponents indicated further amendments and discussion were likely when the House resumes consideration.