SALT LAKE CITY — The second day of Utah's court-ordered redistricting process is taking place.
The Utah State Legislature is now presenting its case to the judge, asking her to adopt the map it passed in a special session earlier this month. On Thursday, the plaintiffs — the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government — presented their case. They called expert witnesses to testify who were highly critical of the map the legislature passed, arguing it still unfairly favors Republicans. At the same time, the plaintiffs argued that their maps properly follow the tenets of Proposition 4, the citizen ballot initiative for independent redistricting at the heart of this case.
Two of the citizen plaintiffs in the case — Malcolm and Victoria Reid — testified about how their community of Millcreek has been split in four under the current congressional map. Judge Dianna Gibson will ultimately choose from three maps: the legislature's (known as "Map C") or two submitted by the plaintiffs.
Here's a live blog of the events in court:
11:29 a.m.
Dr. Trende, still on direct testimony, is giving his views on which tests in redistricting he thinks work and which tests he thinks doesn't and addressing criticism of his own work. He acknowledges there's widespread disagreement among those in his profession on a lot of things, but continues to defend his work.
The testimony is beginning to bog down as Green asks Dr. Trende about individual claims and tests applied to his map.
Asked about his partisan leanings, Dr. Sean Trende says the last time he voted for a Republican for president was 2012. He has also testified against Republicans.
"Do you consider yourself to be a Republican?" Green asks.
"I don't," he says.
Direct examination is done. Judge calls a brief recess.
11:12 a.m.
As direct examination continues, Dr. Trende is going over the evaluations he did on his own maps that were chosen by the Utah State Legislature. Asked about Dr. Chen's algorithm (testified at length yesterday), Dr. Trende says the only one who uses it is "only Dr. Chen."
Green notes Prop. 4 demands the districts have equal population. Did you code your simulations to demand equal population? Dr. Trende says you have to allow a little wiggle-room, about 1%, on population and it won't affect the top-line partisanship.
This is veering into highly technical testimony, like all the redistricting experts who have appeared in court, as Dr. Trende defends his maps and his analysis of them to meet Prop. 4's criteria. All of this is designed to make the legislature's case to the judge that Map C should be chosen.
"No matter what I looked at, the map passed," Dr. Trende testifies.
Green keeps going over tests conducted to evaluate the maps. On the same day the legislature passed the map, it passed SB1011 requiring partisan bias/partisan symmetry tests.
"Partisan symmetry is measured by partisan bias," Dr. Trende testifies.
He says he wouldn't have included it if he were drafting the statute, but maybe the mean/median test and efficiency gap.
Did you run a partisan bias test on Map C?
"I did," he testifies. "It passed."
Green asks about criticism. Dr. Trende suggests that two of the districts are competitive for Democrats.
"If the Democrats run Ben McAdams in one and Evan McMullin in the other, they're going to have half the delegation," he testifies.
10:42 a.m.
Dr. Trende is continuing his direct testimony for the Utah State Legislature.
He is defending Map C as following the tenets of Proposition 4. He explains that there were some "judgment calls" that still had to be made.
"Does the map comply with the structural requirements of Proposition 4?" Green asks.
"Yes," Dr. Trende replies.
"Is the map just the 2021 map in disguise?" Green asks.
"No."
Green asks Dr. Trende if he considered partisanship in any way?
"Not at all," he testifies.
Did you consider the likely partisan outcome in any of the districts? Design them to favor an incumbent or political party? Unduly favor an incumbent or political party?
"No."
When did you learn about partisanship claims of the districts?
"When the map was about to be voted on, Twitter kind of erupted," he says.
Dr. Trende says Map C does not favor or disfavor any party. He says in Utah, there's history of "Democrats overperforming," citing Jim Matheson and Ben McAdams' congressional wins.
Prop. 4 prohibits intent-based or effects-based gerrymandering, Green points out.
"Did you draw the map with the intent of helping one party or another?" Green asks Dr. Trende.
"No," he testifies.
10:26 a.m.
Dr. Sean Trende, who designed the Utah legislature's maps in the court-ordered redistricting process, is now testifying. He works for RealClearPolitics and has been involved in numerous redistricting cases. He prepared an expert report for the judge.
Tyler Green, an attorney for the Utah State Legislature, is questioning him about the maps he created. Dr. Trende also evaluated other maps submitted in the redistricting process.
There's a moment of levity in the courtroom as Green misspeaks and offers Dr. Trende as "an exhibit" before correcting himself to say he's "an expert."
"You get to go home, Dr. Trende!" Green jokes.
"I don't think so, we have to keep our exhibits!" Judge Gibson quips as people laugh in the courtroom.
Turning to the case at hand, Green asks Dr. Trende if he's reviewed Prop. 4? He has and goes into the structural provisions of the law (and Prop. 4 is law, as Judge Gibson has declared). Dr. Trende goes over equal population requirements, municipal/county splits minimized, compactness, ease of transportation, keeping communities of interest together.
"No matter what you do, Salt Lake County is going to be split once," Dr. Trende testifies.
He explains he tried to draw maps where he minimized splits.
On compactness, he calls it an "ongoing bone of contention with the redistricting committee." Dr. Trende and the judge are looking at each other as he explains his methodology. Judge Gibson is taking notes.
Dr. Trende pushes back on some of the criticism of his maps from yesterday, arguing that they do meet the tenets of Prop. 4. He points out "mountain ranges don't go in a straight line."
Green asks about communities of interest, Dr. Trende says you can ask people what they think a community is "as long as people aren't smuggling in partisan goals into their description" but there's also demographic commonalities.
"The most straightforward here is municipalities," he says, adding that Native American tribal lands, military installations, made sense. But river boundaries, mountain ranges do impact compactness.
Dr. Trende says he did follow all this criteria in drawing the maps, but there were some judgment calls.
"There's cities that cross county boundaries, what do you do about that?" he says, adding that he prioritized minimizing city splits over county splits.
Asked about how he drew Map C, Dr. Trende says he looked at fixing "the structural problems." He started in Salt Lake County and saw the four-way split and didn't like it. He knew Salt Lake County had to be split, but it made sense to put the western half in District 2 and the eastern half in District 3.
"Salt Lake City is made whole," he testifies, adding that Sandy and Draper are wholly within the eastern district. Millcreek's splits were fixed, he says, but he kept it split.
"That's what it ended up looking like," he tells the judge.
District 2 was overpopulated, so Davis County got moved into District 1. Summit County moved into District 3 with Morgan County, he testifies. District 4 is now a half-million people under. Juab County was split and it was resolved.
"It went nicely along the I-80 corridor that comes through Salt Lake City," Dr. Trende says, adding that rural counties were based on the southern end of the I-15 corridor.
Green asks him about the end result? The map has equal population, Dr. Trende says. On municipal and county splits, there are still three: Millcreek, North Salt Lake and Pleasant Grove.
9:39 a.m.
Aseem Mulji, an attorney for the plaintiffs, is now cross-examining Dr. Katz. He asks Dr. Katz to clarify he is offering no opinion on the remedial maps?
"That's correct," Dr. Katz testifies, adding he is also not opining on Proposition 4.
Mulji continues to press Dr. Katz on the terms of Prop. 4, and whether he's opining on what it requires?
"Of course not," he says.
Dr. Katz says he's not a lawyer so he's not reviewing it. Nor has he looked at Prop. 4. He was retained a few weeks ago.
Dr. Katz, who acknowledges he is one of the foremost experts on measuring partisan symmetry, still stays out of the applicability of it in Utah specifically. He declines to offer opinions on it.
"Under no circumstances does efficiency gap measure partisan symmetry," he says.
Mulji says Dr. Katz's expert report doesn't even mention "Utah."
"I haven't checked every one of my cases," he replies, adding he talks about their applicability in general and where they don't apply.
Mulji continues to delve into Dr. Katz's report, partisan symmetry and the use of the partisan bias test. This cross-examination gets academic really quickly as Mulji starts talking about studies on partisan symmetry/partisan bias testing. He is apparently tying it to the legislature's new bill applying the partisan bias test to redistricting in Utah. Dr. Katz begins to defends his research and his work.
After an objection, Judge Gibson cautions Mulji against interrupting the witness.
Mulji asks about a study arguing for protections that could protect a minority party in redistricting.
"Again, we have to be very clear about what we mean by non-competitive states," Dr. Katz cautions.
Mulji presses him a little more on minority party protections, then moves to "uniform swing assumption." Dr. Katz explains a little more of that. When Mulji asks about it in the context of SB1011 (the law applying some tests to redistricting) Dr. Katz reiterates he has not read that law.
Dr. Katz pushes back on definitions of partisan bias and partisan symmetry testing, wanting to be very clear about what the formula is (which plaintiffs argued yesterday is not appropriate as it is designed for more competitive states with a 50/50 split and not a lopsided political state like Utah).
"Is partisan bias an appropriate metric to apply to state congressional maps?" Mulji asks.
"Yes," Dr. Katz replies.
Mulji brings up the "mean/median test" and asks if it should be used in Utah? Dr. Katz says he wouldn't rely just on that test.
On redirect examination, Dr. Katz says he is here to offer an opinion on the best statistical methods — not offering legal advice.
"I am not a lawyer," he says.
Dr. Katz is dismissed.
"Dr. Katz, thank you very much for your time and testimony. You are excused," Judge Gibson says.
"You're welcome, your honor," he replies.
8:57 a.m.
Dr. Jonathan Katz of the California Institute of Technology is testifying for the Utah State Legislature. He is certified as an expert on redistricting. He tells the court he has worked for Republicans and Democrats and has testified in other gerrymandering cases.
"The accepted standard for how we measure fairness in election maps is partisan symmetry," Dr. Katz testifies.
Dr. Katz goes into how they calculate partisan symmetry in redistricting. Like the expert testimony yesterday, this is getting very technical with calculations and methodologies. He goes into how they calculate partisan symmetry and partisan bias. It's a formula that determines seats and who gets what share of them. He acknowledges most people don't think about it "except nerds like me."
Dr. Katz acknowledges his partisan symmetry research has received some criticism when asked by Olivia Rogers, one of the legislature's attorneys. He pushes back on some of that criticism.
"What they're doing is they're sneaking into a notion of fairness, proportionality," he says, arguing they are not treating the parties the same.
Dr. Katz goes over some of the other tests used in the redistricting process, occasionally turning to face the judge as he speaks. Judge Dianna Gibson looks back at him and takes notes as he continues to testify.
Dr. Katz offers some critiques of the "efficiency gap" test that was a part of yesterday's testimony from the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. As he did during yesterday's testimony, those witnesses are now in the courtroom listening intently to Dr. Katz's testimony.
8:20 a.m.
Before court gets started, here's the maps the judge is considering. She has until Nov. 10 to make a decision. It's the deadline Lt. Governor Deidre Henderson has set in order to ensure the proper ballots are printed for the 2026 elections.
This is the legislature's proposed map:
These are the plaintiffs' proposed maps:
