Utah governor signs bill adding two justices to state Supreme Court as redistricting ruling heads to appeal

Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed legislation Saturday expanding the state Supreme Court from five justices to seven, a move that comes as Republicans appeal a lower court ruling that ordered the state to redraw its congressional map. The bill, S.B. 134, took effect immediately upon signing.

The expansion creates two vacant seats that Cox will fill, subject to state Senate confirmation. Republicans hold a supermajority in that chamber—22 of 29 seats—making confirmation virtually assured. Once seated, Cox appointees will comprise five of the court's seven justices.

No Democrats in either chamber voted for the bill. Over 70 percent of Republicans did.

The Case That Sparked the Fight

In August 2025, District Court Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that Utah's congressional map constituted "partisan gerrymandering" and ordered the state to redraw it. Gibson, herself a Republican appointee of former Governor Gary Herbert, approved a new map in November 2025, The Daily Caller reported.

State Republicans immediately appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, where the case now awaits review. The timing of the court expansion—five months after Gibson's ruling—has drawn obvious attention.

But the underlying question is whether Gibson's ruling was sound in the first place. Utah's four congressional districts are all held by Republicans. In 2024, every single one voted for Donald Trump by at least 19 percentage points. The redrawn district, by contrast, voted for Kamala Harris by over 20 points.

In a state this red, what exactly does a "fair" map look like? The answer depends entirely on whether you believe proportional representation is a constitutional mandate or a progressive wish list.

The Rationale for Expansion

Utah House Majority Leader Casey Snider, who sponsored S.B. 134, offered a straightforward defense:

"I would err on the side that seven sets of eyes reviewing the most complex and difficult issues our state has ever faced is better than having only five sets of eyes."

That framing is unremarkable on its face. State supreme courts vary widely in size. Texas has nine justices. Oklahoma has nine. California has seven. Utah moving from five to seven hardly constitutes a radical departure from norms.

What critics object to is the timing—and the obvious political stakes. But timing, in this case, cuts both ways. If a lower court ruling threatens to upend a state's electoral map based on a contested legal theory, is it unreasonable for the legislature to ensure the appellate court has adequate resources to review it thoroughly?

The Gerrymandering Question

The word "gerrymandering" has become a rhetorical cudgel, deployed whenever a map produces outcomes one side dislikes. But gerrymandering has a specific meaning: the deliberate manipulation of district boundaries to entrench partisan advantage.

In a state where the electorate itself is overwhelmingly Republican, a map that produces Republican victories isn't really gerrymandering so much as it's just simple math.

Utah voted for Trump by double digits. Its congressional delegation reflects that. The redrawn map Gibson approved would create a district that Harris would have won by over 20 points—a result wildly out of step with the state's actual political composition.

The question before the Utah Supreme Court isn't whether the current map is perfect. It's whether a judge can mandate proportional outcomes that override the legitimate preferences of voters. That's a question worth getting right.

Cox's Quiet Move

Governor Cox's office did not respond to requests for comment on the signing. That silence is notable but not necessarily damning. Cox has appointed three of the court's current five justices; adding two more seats doesn't change his influence so much as it consolidates it.

Cox inherited a court shaped by his Republican predecessors. One justice was appointed by Mike Leavitt. One by Gary Herbert. Cox added three. The expansion continues a pattern, not a rupture.

Republicans control Utah's government because Utah's voters have consistently chosen Republican governance. The court expansion reflects that democratic reality. Pretending otherwise requires ignoring how the state actually votes.

Court-Packing by Another Name?

Critics will inevitably invoke the specter of court-packing—the progressive dream of adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court to dilute its conservative majority. But the comparison is strained.

Federal court-packing proposals target a co-equal branch of government to override constitutional interpretation progressives dislike. Utah's expansion targets a state court that will review a state law matter, initiated by a legislature responding to a ruling it believes was wrongly decided.

These are not the same thing. One is an attempt to delegitimize a constitutional order. The other is a state exercising its sovereign authority over its own judicial structure.

States add judges all the time—to handle caseloads, to address complexity, to modernize outdated structures. That Utah did so in the middle of a politically charged case doesn't automatically render the decision illegitimate. It means the stakes are high.

What Happens Next

Cox will now nominate two justices. The Republican-controlled Senate will confirm them. The expanded court will hear the redistricting appeal.

The outcome is not preordained. Judges appointed by Republican governors have, throughout American history, ruled against Republican interests when they believed the law required it. Gibson herself is a Herbert appointee. The new justices may surprise.

But the legal question—whether Utah's map constitutes unconstitutional gerrymandering—will be decided by a court that Utah's elected officials shaped through legitimate democratic processes. That's how representative government works.

The Stakes for 2026

If Gibson's redrawn map survives appeal, one of Utah's four congressional seats will almost certainly flip from Republican to Democrat in the midterms. A district that voted for Harris by 20 points will not elect a Republican.

For a party fighting to hold its House majority, that's not an abstraction. It's a seat lost—not because voters changed their minds, but because a judge decided the state's electoral geography needed correction.

Utah's Republicans decided not to wait for that outcome. They expanded the court. They will fill the seats. And they will ask seven justices, not five, whether a judge had the authority to redraw their state's political map.

The answer matters beyond Utah. It will signal whether gerrymandering claims can override electoral outcomes in states where one party dominates—or whether maps must reflect the voters who actually live there.

Utah just raised the stakes. Now the court will decide.