Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators debate two competing congressional maps as critics call one plan gerrymandered
Summary
The Senate debated the committee's congressional plan (SB2) and an alternate plan offered as SB3. Sponsors said each plan aimed to create an urban‑rural mix for three districts; critics called the committee plan partisan and accused it of gerrymandering, particularly slicing Salt Lake City constituencies. The chamber circulated plans and deferred final votes until more members were present.
The Utah Senate spent the afternoon debating competing congressional redistricting proposals, with members sharply divided over how to balance counties, communities of interest and political composition.
Senator Reese presented the committee's plan (Senate Bill 2), arguing the map created three districts each containing both urban and rural areas to promote balanced representation and to help Utah's three congressmen act "in concert" on statewide issues. Reese said the committee reviewed many options and that the plan's population deviations were near acceptable limits (he cited a deviation figure near 0.16%).
Senator Bunnell (floor critic) and others called the committee plan a textbook example of gerrymandering and said it forced odd geographic connections — for example, linking Washington County in the far south with counties 700 miles away — that would undermine communities of interest. Editorials from local newspapers were read into the record criticizing the plan as partisan and aimed at diluting urban Democratic strength.
Senator Peterson offered an alternative (Senate Bill 3, also described as congressional plan 15) that he said closely followed prior alignments and achieved near-exact population equality (he said the largest positive deviation was +24 people and the largest negative was -27 people). Supporters of Peterson's plan argued it preserved regional coherence and was preferable for southern Utah representation.
The floor traded technical and political arguments: proponents stressed compactness, communities of interest and proportionality; critics emphasized travel distances for constituents, dilution of urban votes, and partisan motive. Several senators urged caution about voting until absent members (notably Senator McAllister) could return; others urged quick action in the special session.
Procedural outcome: The Senate placed Senator Peterson's plan (SB3) on the third-reading calendar and later recorded a passage to third reading (Senate recorded 21 ayes, 2 nays, 6 absent). The body later removed the circle from SB2 and left the matter as unfinished business for the next day, instructing senators to reconvene at 9 a.m.
