A few weeks ago, I started writing a short post about redistricting. I quickly realized that while words like “fairness” and “neutrality” make for clever soundbites, the actual math and practical realities are much more nuanced. Two weeks later, that post has turned into an ten-page essay.
The main point is this: the promise of more competitive elections is a worthy endeavor, but the current process is failing. It’s a deep dive, but if you want to understand the structural realities of our state—and why the results of recent reforms haven’t appeared—I’ve laid it all out for you.
The “Too Long; Didn’t Read” summary:
- Math isn’t neutral: Given Utah’s geography, a 4-0 outcome is likely to be the default, even without gerrymandering. Moving to a safe 3-1 map doesn’t remove “engineering”; it requires it.
- The “Safe Seat” Trap: Maps with one or two competitive congressional elections are possible, but the recent judge-selected map has actually eliminated competitiveness by “packing” voters into safe enclaves where the only election that matters is the primary or convention.
- Accountability: Because the process is inherently political no matter who holds the pen, accountability is essential. Those who are accountable to voters should have the final say.
Ultimately, the Prop 4 process is failing to deliver the competition it promised, and we’ve traded the consensus of 104 elected representatives for the “Rule of One.”
Read the full essay here.
