Since the state’s admission into the Union, Utah has voted in 33 presidential elections over the span of more than a century. Of these 33 elections, Utah has maintained a strict red bias with over 75% of these elections ending in the nomination of a candidate aligning with the elephant party. And from 1964 into the modern day, this figure of republican voting habits has only increased from 75 up to 100 percent. But perhaps that is news of the past when examining the political future of the state.
For many, in the context of a rapidly expanding and equally polarized political scene, party dominion has been a source of strong frustration: regardless of state boundaries and alignment along the political spectrum. The effect of this is that voters—particularly those of a minority party—feel as though their voice in political decisions is relatively meaningless. With August polling data showing that young voter demographics, ages 18-30 in particular, seem to be progressively less engaged with politics it seems that apathetic voting is on the rise. While this trend has hit the nation more heavily than Utah alone, by no means is Herriman spared from the effects of declining voter interest.
But perhaps it doesn’t have to be that way. On Nov. 10, 2025 new voting districts were unveiled to be used in the upcoming 2026 elections in Utah. This decision has been several years in the making, sparking intense interest in public conversation ever since the return of Proposition 4; a clause originally introduced in 2018, but later struck down in 2020, only to once again find its way back into the Utah legislature. In its simplest terms, Proposition 4 requires that an independent commission of few members be in charge of drawing boundary lines for redistricting to encourage bipartisanship in the Deseret state. While some fought this decision, by late September large steps in its approval were confirmed by third District Utah Judge Diana Gibson when the proposed maps of Republican state lawmakers were dismissed for unconstitutional representation making room for new lines that would favor land allocation towards a predominately democratic district located surrounding the boundaries of Salt Lake City capturing much of the state’s urban heart.
While some celebrate the decision as the first act of many in a better Utah for all, others have become harsh critics of the boundary change going as far to call the decision blatant gerrymandering. To an extent both viewpoints are right.
Starting with the latter, these new lines are gerrymandered—just as the ones before them, and those before, and even further back. The truth is to create objectively unbiased district lines under current constitutional guidelines is a near impossible task; the only real difference is that these new lines pack democratic perspectives together giving them predicted control over one liberally-controlled district rather than drowning out blue party votes against the backdrop of larger districts preventing congressional democratic representation altogether as district boundaries have done in the past.
And as for the other point, this decision will likely improve political engagement issues bilaterally in that it doesn’t solely strip traditionally republican-controlled voting power away, turning it into the hands of democrats, but rather it adds nuance into voting conversations by easing the domination of a majority party in such a way that forces voters to reflect upon their personal values and seek candidates beyond party-endorsed establishment figures.
In many ways, the implications these new lines have are poised to benefit third-party candidates most in the next major electoral cycle. Steven Burt, a congressional candidate running in the 2026 elections for the position of Utah representative of district number four is breaking the mold in industry-state politics by identifying as a political independent. He claims that, “[electing] a Republican or Democrat, they will be playing for two teams[;] their loyalty will be divided. They will get back to D.C. (…) and when they’re told to pull they will pull.” This is the unfortunate reality of a two-party system in its current structure. However, with a voting system that doesn’t solely cater to a political duopoly—like that proposed in Utah’s new boundaries—the presence of competition (both in party primaries and independent parties) presents new opportunities that make a candidate’s promise more accurate in reflecting the desire of their constituents; in other words, the likelihood of votes guaranteed solely off of a party label decreases.
What’s important to remember is that the prospects of these changes only exist if public effort backs them up. Political threats to challenge Utah’s new voting districts have been thrown around by Republican state lawmakers with some willing to take the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. The good news is that with the class of 2026 graduating just in time to participate in Utah’s midterm elections, you can make your voice matter.
