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:
10:00 p.m.
Better Boundaries, the group that sponsored Prop. 4. back in 2018, reacted to the Utah GOP's decision to drop the indirect initiative. In a statement, they wrote:
“Once again, political insiders’ attempts to undermine the people’s voice and repeal Proposition 4 have fallen flat, at least for now. This is a win in our ongoing fight to give Utahns the reforms they voted for in 2018. Proposition 4 remains the law of the land. Moving forward, we will continue to strongly oppose any and all efforts to undermine fair maps and the ability of voters to choose their politicians.”
8:27 p.m.
In remarks to FOX 13 News outside of court, League of Women Voters of Utah President Katharine Biele reacted to the Utah GOP dropping its indirect initiative.
"I think it was wise for them to withdraw their indirect initiative," she said. "As far as I know, it’s never been done in Utah. They will find out just how difficult a real initiative is. We went through that in 2018 and it was hard."
Asked how the judge will rule on the maps? Biele said she would not guess.
"She has a lot of work ahead of her."
6:21 p.m.
Utahns for Representative Government, the group formed by GOP members to run the citizen initiative to undo Prop. 4, issued this statement to FOX 13 News:
With continued groundswell of support from Utahns across the state to restore constitutional order, Utahns for Representative Government remains committed to defending the people’s voice.
Recent legal filings by those opposed to our defense of representative government made it clear that the Lt. Governor’s Office would likely be forced to deny the indirect initiative application. As such, Utahns for Representative Government have withdrawn the existing application and immediately filed a direct initiative to repeal Proposition 4 and restore constitutional balance in Utah.
The sponsors of the direct initiative include Utah Republican Party Chair Robert Axson, U.S. Senator Mike Lee, Utah Attorney General Derek Brown, Former U.S. Congressman Rob Bishop, Republican National Committeeman Brad Bonham, Leeds Mayor Bill Hoster, Beaver County Commissioner Tammy Pearson, Utah County Republican Party Chair Cristy Henshaw, and grassroots Republican volunteers Carolina Herrin, Cody Stewart, and Carolyn Phippen.
“While we would have preferred to continue under the process provided by law, the time required to defend our rights and appeal flawed judicial decisions would have made it impossible to meet statutory deadlines,” said Utahns for Representative Government. “The Utah Constitution is clear: the authority to draw congressional districts rests with the people’s elected representatives—not with the courts and not with an unaccountable commission. We again call on all Utahns to stand against judicial overreach and defend the separation of powers outlined in our state constitution.”
The group emphasized that this new initiative follows the exact same process used by the proponents of Proposition 4, exposing the hypocrisy of any opposition:
“For those who claim to believe in the initiative process, they should welcome our effort. The only difference is that our initiative restores the constitutional order that Proposition 4 disrupted,” said Utah Republican Party Chair Rob Axson. “This is about defending the Utah Constitution and stopping unelected judges from rewriting it. The people’s representatives— not the courts—should draw Utah’s maps.”
Previously scheduled meetings for Saturday, October 25 regarding the indirect initiative have been canceled. New public meetings to support the direct initiative will be held across the state on Monday, November 3, 2025 and noticed appropriately.
5:50 p.m.
Per the Lt. Governor's Office, public hearings for the Utah GOP's indirect initiative that were scheduled to be held Saturday have been canceled.
5:27 p.m.
No closing arguments. The lawyers agree to have their written conclusions on Tuesday.
Judge Gibson seems in a good mood, she gives them until Wednesday at 11:59 p.m. to submit their conclusions.
The lawyer for the Lt. Governor approaches from the audience and announces (what I just reported) that the Utah GOP dropped their indirect initiative.
"Oh!" Judge Gibson says.
The hearing may be off. She'll keep it on the calendar until further notice from the lawyers.
Court is wrapping up.
5:19 p.m.
Dr. Barber is done testifying. The legislature rests its case. Judge Gibson is now hearing objections to exhibits.
5:10 p.m.
As cross-examination of Dr. Barber continues, the Utah Republican Party has just dropped its request for an indirect initiative on their effort to undo Proposition 4. Instead, they will seek a direct ballot initiative.
"Please consider this the official notice of withdrawal for the indirect initiative previously submitted on October 14th. We are withdrawing this effort prior to initiating a direct initiative effort on the same issue," Utah GOP Chair Robert Axson wrote in an email to the state elections director.
4:47 p.m.
Continuing cross-examination. Dr. Barber is shown some of his simulated maps with similarities and issues that Gaber suggests may not comply with Prop. 4. He acknowledges there are similarities.
"There are some portions of this map that are pretty desirable," Dr. Barber pushes back when challenged on a series of maps.
"Can you drive from Tooele to Box Elder County?" Gaber asks.
"Maybe if you use a Bonneville Speedway-type car," Dr. Barber quips.
Dr. Barber says if you put it forward as a suggested map, it would obviously need to be tweaked. He says these are not meant to be submissions. Gaber continues to show simulated maps and suggests they do not comply with Prop. 4 criteria.
"I understand the point that you're making, you would not swim across the Great Salt Lake," Dr. Barber says of some of the maps' district boundaries.
4:21 p.m.
Under cross-examination, plaintiff's attorney Mark Gaber points to Dr. Barber's own report urging caution on tests that produce a "paradoxical result" in a state like Utah. Gaber asks if Dr. Barber feels like it's the best approach to mandate a particular metric?
"I think that a variety of metrics can give you more information," he testifies.
Gaber goes over Dr. Barber's report to the court, asking when he was aware of the last election in Utah that was close to 50/50? Dr. Barber cites the U.S. Senate race between Evan McMullin and Mike Lee.
The computers are being finicky, a sign the day is getting long as court keeps going.
3:58 p.m.
As the testimony goes on, people are checking their watches and shifting in their seats.
Dr. Barber continues to be asked about Dr. Chen's simulations in an effort to rebut the prior day's testimony, contrasting with his own map simulations. Dr. Barber says Dr. Chen's algorithm has developed "an obsession with a northern Salt Lake County district." He can't identify why but it's a "tell-tale sign of a biased algorithm."
On a screen, a series of maps are being flashed on the screen showing variations of the same thing, which is what the legislature is trying to do — cast doubt on Dr. Chen's algorithm.
Direct examination is over.
3:39 p.m.
Direct examination continues. Geiger asks Dr. Barber if he's ever drawn a map in a redistricting case? Yes, Dr. Barber testifies. He was a special master, appointed to draw district boundaries in and around Detroit in a gerrymandering case there.
Dr. Barber says he has evaluated Plaintiff's Map 1. There are two issues he took note of them. There's a housing development in unincorporated Weber County that is split in half.
"It actually happens to be... my sister's home is there," he chuckles. "To me that is not desirable."
In Utah County, Alpine is "really orphaned" in that district. Another sister lives in that area.
"I don't know if Dr. Oskooii has a thing out for my family!" he jokes as people in the courtroom start laughing.
Dr. Barber says he also takes issue with where some of the communities in the south end of the Salt Lake Valley are put.
"Those cities in the southwest, they tend to have similar interests. They have similar issues," he says. "It's an unusual orientation. And then on top of that you have Bluffdale, which is not included."
Dr. Barber, who lives in Utah, testifies about the individual issues he sees with the map like a local. He points out problems he sees with the canyons being separated from communities at their mouths.
There is a lot of comparison and contrast to Dr. Chen's reports for the plaintiffs as Dr. Barber pushes back on criticism of his simulations.
3:01 p.m.
Direct examination of Dr. Barber continues as he explains his analysis of the maps. Dr. Barber says he did not use the same simulations as Dr. Trende to come to his conclusions.
"We're all driving cars, but we're driving different cars," he tells the judge.
Dr. Barber's testimony may be the least wonky we've heard over the past two days, as he describes the methods he used to evaluate maps. He is going through tests and simulations and their results.
"My bottom line conclusions are that the 2025 map is pretty unremarkable in that way," he says of Map C. "It doesn't stand at the edge of these tests... every time it just comes up in the middle."
Asked about the plaintiff's maps, Dr. Barber says they tend to fall at the edges.
Judge Gibson calls for a recess.
2:43 p.m.
Dr. Michael Barber, a political scientist at Brigham Young University, is the last witness for the legislature. Like the other witnesses, Dr. Barber has testified for Democrats and Republicans in past redistricting cases. He is offered as an expert witness.
Dr. Barber says he has been asked to evaluate the maps before the judge using the various tests articulated in statute and through other methods. They include partisan bias, mean/median tests and the "ensemble analysis."
Are some more reliable than others for Utah?
"Yes, some I think are more probative than others in this context," Dr. Barber testifies, adding he believes the "efficiency gap" is the least reliable in the state. Others can be helpful.
Dr. Barber is familiar with the tests required under the legislature's special session law. He used the tests on those maps and the legislature's Map C passed, the Plaintiff's Map 1 did not pass. Plaintiff's Map 2 failed on some tests. Soren Geiger, an attorney for the legislature, asks him to go through each of the maps and which tests they passed or failed.
Dr. Barber is asked about Prop. 4 criteria in simulations he ran. Asked if he treats all 29 counties the same? Salt Lake County became the exception because its population is too much to be in one district. It must be split. Dr. Barber says he didn't give it additional instruction, noting that many of the natural county and municipal boundaries follow geographic features like rivers and mountains. There is a point, Dr. Barber says, when he has to make "subjective decisions" like legislative districts, school districts, council boundaries, etc.
"I think it's probably best to not specify beyond those higher-level criteria," he testifies.
Asked about communities of interest, Dr. Barber says if you ask six people what those are you will get 10 answers.
"These are comments from people and there's a bunch of partisan data in there and maybe your communities are just shoehorning partisan preferences," he says.
Dr. Barber testifies he believes his analysis does follow Prop. 4's criteria.
2:07 p.m.
Cross-examination of Dr. Trende is veering into some very technical discussion about methods used to evaluate maps. Dr. Trende is shown a number of maps and asked if they would comply with Prop. 4.
Gaber asks about errors in his report? Dr. Trende says it happens from time to time. Gaber also points out that in the past, Dr. Trende's testimony has been excluded citing some past cases. Dr. Trende offers some rationale for each one. Gaber reads some harsh criticisms from prior rulings and other cases. Dr. Trende doesn't dispute some of the assessments and points out that in context? He would have made the same decisions the judge did.
A little later in the cross-examination, Dr. Trende testifies he didn't use drive times in crafting maps, he just looked at major roads connecting things.
Gaber plays a portion of a podcast featuring Redistricting Committee Chairs Candice Pierucci, R-Herriman, and Scott Sandall, R-Tremonton. Sen. Sandall talks about maps using partisan data that were rejected by the committee. He then plays audio from a 2021 hearing where Sen. Sandall objected to a map with "political data."
"You were not told by anyone, don't use this program?" Gaber asks, noting it had political data the legislature wouldn't consider.
"It was set to worthless standard [with data going back to 2012]... it wouldn't have told me anything," Dr. Trende says.
No further questions. Dr. Trende is excused.
1:44 p.m.
Court is back in session after the lunch break. Dr. Trende is back on the witness stand, facing cross-examination from plaintiff's lawyer, Mark Gaber.
Gaber continues to question Dr. Trende about the types of tests used to evaluate the maps. He plays a clip from Dr. Trende's testimony to the Utah State Legislature's Redistricting Committee about partisan symmetry where it's most useful for a state legislative map with more districts instead of a congressional map.
Dr. Trende testifies that he still believes that. But Gaber notes it is not part of SB1011 (which only applies a partisan bias test to congressional redistricting, not legislative).
Gaber notes that voters, when they passed Prop. 4 back in 2018, were not thinking about academic studies about partisan symmetry. That's probably true, Dr. Trende tells him. The testimony is focusing on the methods used to evaluate the maps and whether they're sufficient.
"You understand the partisan bias test in a state like Utah can have a paradoxical result?" Gaber asks.
Dr. Trende says it's not as severe as some might suggest.
After more questions about partisan bias tests, Dr. Trende is asked about simulations that were run and the code he used. He didn't keep Herriman, Riverton and Bluffdale together?
"No," he says.
Nor did he code it to keep school district boundaries, canyons, etc. Was he unaware of the military base, university and tribal lands grouping requests by the legislature? Dr. Trende says he was aware of keeping Uintah/Duchesne counties together, universities and tribal lands together. Grand County gets lumped with Uintah and Duchesne counties because of tribal lands, he testifies.
There's discussion about Park City, Bluffdale and Draper that cross county lines. Dr. Trende says he did go back and forth on how to deal with those cities when drawing lines and where they should be.
12:32 p.m.
Cross-examination of Dr. Trende continues with some hyper-detailed questions about maps and how he came to the lines he did. Gaber refers to a district by color on a map and Dr. Trende interrupts to say: "We're really doing this again?"
"Oh, I'm sorry Dr. Trende!" Gaber says.
It turns out that Dr. Trende is color blind. So Gaber starts to refer to districts differently as he continues to question the witness about the process of drawing maps.
"In your view, to be compliant with Prop 4, the county need not be split any more than one time?" Gaber asks, referring to Salt Lake County.
"It need not," Dr. Trende replies. "Yes, that's right."
Throughout this questioning, Judge Gibson continues to take notes. She nods her head occasionally.
Asked if he considered just starting over, Dr. Trende says "no." Why didn't he want to do that?
"Because I didn't want to be sitting here," Dr. Trende jokes. "I know what's coming. You're a nice guy until about 45 minutes in."
Gaber presses on about why Dr. Trende cut up Salt Lake County the way he did. Did anyone from the legislature suggest to start with the 2021 map as a base map?
"I don't think so," Dr. Trende says.
Gaber asks why Dr. Trende has multiple log-ins for a redistricting program. Dr. Trende says it's to keep things "pristine" between redistricting cases he's involved in.
After some more very detailed and technical testimony, court breaks for lunch.
12:05 p.m.
"Good morning, Dr. Trende. It's nice to see you again. We have spent some time together this year," plaintiff's attorney Mark Gaber says as he begins his cross-examination, referencing the last time they faced each other in the Texas redistricting case.
"Yes, we have," Dr. Trende replies. "I still like you."
Gaber asks who in the Utah State Legislature Dr. Trende has spoken with? Just in the hearing.
Whose idea was it to have five map options?
"I don't know," Dr. Trende replies.
At any point where there more than five options on the table? Dr. Trende says he submitted more maps, but he doesn't know what happened with them. He utters 15, then says he doesn't want to make a record, but "maybe 10."
Did you conduct any analysis of the partisan nature of the maps?
"Because everything was done on a rolling basis, I don't know if I did for the first set," Dr. Trende says. "At some point we got more simulations and I was able to incorporate more analysis."
Who decided on the five options before the legislature: You or the legislature?
"Someone who is not me," Dr. Trende says, suggesting he simply does not know.
Whose idea was it to draw from simulated maps? A tweet, Dr. Trende says. Did the legislature give you an idea?
"I know it occurred to me from that... tweet, but I can't remember if this was my idea or something that occurred simultaneously to multiple people," he says.
Dr. Trende testifies the legislature really needed to get going, so he took the existing 2021 congressional map and "fixed it." It was not an instruction or request from the legislature, he tells Gaber.
Gaber asks for distinctions between the maps submitted to the legislature, including which ones were hand-drawn versus computer simulations. He's going over the analysis of the maps, asking Dr. Trende specifics about them.
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:
