This map does minimize some urban and rural areas from being combined, but the weird wandering way that the urban areas are divided leaves one to wonder why they were selected that way. While I understand that there are population targets for the districts and it is impossible to make them perfectly divided along natural features, when you consider the population of Salt Lake County, it would be pretty easy to keep most of Salt Lake County together without doing weird divisions like this. You could then also do the same for Utah County and then remainder of Salt Lake County. Then the rural areas could be split. This does not make sense as it is. When you look at the way that they were divided before we had 4 districts, it clearly can be done, but since we know that we started splitting Salt Lake up in the 2000s to dilute the power of the largest metro area, why are we trying to still sneak that in! The voters made their voices clear, Salt Lake does not want to be combined with the corners of the state and the corners don't want to be combined with Salt Lake!

This has a strange east-west division of districts.

I do not support option D. Salt Lake County is split down the middle and added to the rural areas, misrepresenting the population. Needs to be proposed by a bipartisan committee

Semi-tolerable, but why does it go to such great lengths to break up Salt Lake County and Utah County? Gerrymandering again...

Again, Salt Lake County appears to be arbitrarily split in a gerrymander. I do not support this map.

Map D is a decent attempt at a fair map, though not as good as the Escamilla/Owens map. However, Map D still fails to meet Prop 4 requirements because it does not have compact districts due to the irregular shapes of districts 1, 3, and 4 – these shapes indicate that the districts do not preserve neighborhood and communities, and the huge span of district 1 from north to south makes travel within the district difficult.

This map does not accomplish the objectives of Prop 4. Communities are divided and lumped in with far-flung communities that have little in common with their needs and issues. Having rural-urban splits in a district makes it difficult for everyone within to be represented equally and fairly.

I do not support Option D. This map splits Salt Lake County and divides Holladay from neighboring urban communities, creating sprawling, irregular districts that dilute our voice and combine neighborhoods with distant rural areas with very different priorities. It violates Proposition 4 by ignoring communities of interest and undermines fair, focused representation. Utahns deserve districts that preserve neighborhoods and allow voters to elect representatives who understand their needs. The Legislature must reject this map.

While this map is better than some, it still does not reflect political balance or keep communities whole. It sharply divides urban areas, including nearby areas I frequent, featuring absurd, sprawling shapes that do not follow natural features or facilitate easy travel through the districts without leaving them. It does not give equal voice to urban and rural areas. It directly opposes what Utah voters asked for in Prop 4. I object!!!

Of all the options, this map is by far the weakest. Utah deserves fair maps, not this.

I do not support Map D because it continues the same harmful practices that have left voters in Sandy underrepresented for years. Once again, this map splits Salt Lake County and divides suburban communities like ours, lumping us into districts with rural regions that have entirely different priorities and interests. This not only weakens our political voice but also ensures that our local concerns — from transportation and education to healthcare and economic growth — are overshadowed by priorities from other parts of the state. Proposition 4 was passed to stop this kind of partisan gerrymandering and create districts that reflect real communities of interest. Map D does the opposite. I urge the Legislature to reject it and adopt a map that gives Sandy residents fair and effective representation.

Redistricting should create districts that reflect the nature and common interests of the counties within them—urban or rural—as much as possible. To achieve this, Salt Lake County must be divided north/south. Forming two districts out of the densely urban Wasatch Front—one with the older northern SL County cities and adjacent southern Davis County cities and another with the newer/growing southern SL County cities with adjacent northern Utah County cities—creates two compact districts of counties with shared interests. This allows the creation of two more rural districts where rural/less urban counties can be grouped according to region and shared tourism/national parks/recreation, tribal, and farming and/or extraction industry interests. Map D only appears to divide SL County north/south, but it’s really another east/west divide and is particularly egregious. District 3 combines northern east side Salt Lake City with fast growing southern west side cities like South Jordan and Herriman then adds parts of more rural Tooele County, while communities adjacent to Salt Lake City, like Millcreek and Holladay, that are considered by locals to be part of the Salt Lake City community, as well as other older cities like Murray, Midvale and West Jordan, are put in District 4 with other growing cities like Sandy, Draper, and Bluffdale with those in northern Utah County. With its odd split of SL County, Map D does not serve the interests of either SL County or the counties in District 1, which combines the northern counties with the far eastern counties that have very different interests. While there are more red/negative public comment dots than green or yellow in all the districts, the red, green, and yellow dots are more balanced on this map than the Maps A, B, C, and E.

I understand in order to distribute the population appropriately the boundaries cannot be straight lines similar to how state boundaries are drawn. However, it does seem suspicious that District 3 has most of Davis County and the northern part of Salt Lake County, then swings out to the southwestern Salt Lake County to capture only South Jordan and Riverton circling around and by-passing Taylorsville, Kearns and West Jordan. Decisions facing the aging suburban communities of Taylorsville, Kearns, and West Jordan have more in common with the other communities in northern Salt Lake County and southern Davis County than Riverton and South Jordan. The latter cities tend to have higher new growth as do many areas of Draper or Utah County.

This is such a bizarre jigsaw on nonsensical borders. This splits communities up horrifically. Additionally, I believe this map has additional county splits compared to A, B, and C, which doesn't follow the spirit of Prop 4

Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County are both divided up and should not be. I don't think this map should be considered.

This map, yet again, carves up Salt Lake City between too many districts. Our urban area is a community of interest. Also, I don't believe one could easily drive from Logan to Moab without leaving this map's proposed district 1. It does not comply with Prop 4. Please use the Independent Redistricting Committee's maps.

I strongly dislike how this map divides Salt Lake City. By grouping rural and urban communities together, neither of the unique needs present in these locations will be met. Please honor the will of Utah voters who demanded independent redistricting reform. Please honor Proposition 4.

I don't like how this map chops up SL County.

I don't think this map is as fair or sensible as the Escamilla-Owens map. I don't think it's as gerrymandered as some of the others, but I think Salt Lake County is divided in a way that seems devised to dilute the power of the voters in the city. Districts 1 and 2 seem meandering in ways that are motivated, in turn, by the desire to split up Salt Lake and combine it with parts of Davis County to the north or southern SL county to the south.

This map option has some benefits, like keeping some urban areas together. However, this is better done by the Escamilla/Owens map.

I like the attempt to keep the areas in SLC together, but the other districts do not make a lot of sense. Logan is many hours away from Moab and Blanding. I don't see how that would be a very good representation of the people in those cities.

Map Option D falls short of whats' in Proposition 4. While it makes an attempt to balance urban and rural areas, it still divides Salt Lake County in ways that weaken community identity and create districts that feel geographically disconnected. The shapes are sprawling and inconsistent with natural boundaries, and the map does not reflect the kind of compactness or cohesion that builds trust in the redistricting process. It may be better than some alternatives, but that’s not enough—it needs meaningful revision.

I do not support this map. Weber County should not be represented by the same person who also covers the rural east and southeast regions. Those of us in Ogden, and even just northern Utah in general, are going to have different needs than those in the eastern part of the state. I also do not understand why Salt Lake County is broken up in the way that it is. If feels like a whirlpool, where the two districts are circling around each other, converging towards the middle. This map also breaks up more counties than most other proposed maps.

goes too far west. not sure of the logic

No, vote for Escamilla-Owens map which is by far the closest to Prop 4.

Disregards Prop 4. DO NOT vote for this map. Gerrymandering.

Prop 4 was passed by the voters. Why do you disregard the wishes of the voters? You work hard and are informed on many issues; nonetheless, follow our wishes. We want competitive elections and not ones that defy the will of the voters, unnaturally divides cities and and counties into multiple districts, and lumps together constituents who should not be lumped together. I am Republican, and I find the collective behavior of the Utah Legislature to be insulting. I don't feel represented. My town is split across four US Congressional districts. Enough is enough. Stop acting like a spoiled two year old; put on your big boy/girl pants and do the right thing.

I was initially inclined to appreciate the efforts made in this map to keep communities of interest together, but upon closer look noticed that there are odd little peninsulas between them in ways that are historically consistent with gerrymandered areas. I am concerned that this map also doesn't follow the requirements of Prop 4, and Utah has many better things to do with its money than continue to be dragged into court to follow the law that its people voted in. Perhaps this map can be adjusted and scrutinized to ensure that it does abide by Prop 4 requirements to avoid further prolonged legal action.

This map violates the requirement of Prop 4 that the map not “unduly favor or disfavor . . . any political party.” Prop 4 requires that the Legislature evaluate maps using the best available methods, “including measures of partisan symmetry.” A standard and well-accepted method of partisan symmetry is the efficiency gap. Generally, maps with an efficiency gap above 7 or 8% are considered to be unduly biased in favor of a party (i.e., considered partisan outliers). When this map was uploaded to PlanScore, it calculated an efficiency gap of 19.0% (in favor of Republicans), which is well above the threshold at which a map evinces a strong partisan bias. Because this map violates Prop 4’s requirements, it should be disqualified from consideration. Any attempt by the legislature to dilute Prop 4’s requirement that the map not by unduly biased by amending the statute’s language (yet again) to cherry-pick standards for partisan bias that give the legislature essentially a free-pass to do whatever it wants would fly in the face of the people’s expressed intent and the Utah Supreme Court’s decisions.

Once again, carving up northern Utah County and southern Salt Lake County like this is awkward and violates Prop 4 guidelines. That being said, this map at least tries to keep more communities of interest together, even if it still falls short.

This splits counties and is inappropriate. What similarities does Ogden have with SE Utah that borders other states?

I dislike this map. We already had the bipartisan commission draw maps and should be using those maps.

This map unfairly represents the constituents of Utah

This map doesn't do a great job of dividing the state up fairly. Lumping dense urban areas and very open rural areas doesn't seem like the best approach that will allow congressional members to actually represent the interests of residents fairly.

This map does not meet the standards put forth in Prop 4 because 1) it divides communities of interest (e.g. S Jordan and West Jordan in different districts?, and 2)commingles the urban and rural districts when we have very different issues. This map appears to have been created using political data which the law specifically prohibits. This map also separates Millcreek from Salt Lake City/Sugarhouse, leaving very irregular shapes and dividing another community of interest.

I do not like this map. It cuts across county lines too much. Prop 4 says that counties should be kept as whole as possible. This does not do that.

SL County is large enough to hold its own district. One district should exist within the county. All your maps have SL County and the surrounding areas split between the 4 districts. So, I request that you reject all these maps and propose a map in true conformance with Proposition 4! Also please reject, Senator Brammer's proposed legislation. It is just a thinly veiled attempt to eliminate Prop 4 - which the citizens of Utah approved!

This is not a good map. It is clearly an attempt to further gerrymander our maps.

This map is extremely gerrymandered and does not meet the fair and equal intent of Prop 4. For example, why does district 1 stretch across the state? A legislator would be have hard time representing all voices equally in over such a large area.

This map does a better job than maps A and C, but still creates odd divisions in Salt Lake Valley and Utah Valley. It is also a bit odd to have the rural portions of northern Utah lumped in with the rural portions of southeastern Utah. The Escamilla Owens map does a better job of portioning Southern Utah and Northern Utah.

This is the least fair map. A house district that runs from the NW corner to the SE corner of the state looks unreasonably difficult for residents to meet in person with their representative.

This map is still gerrymandered and does not comply with the requirements outlined in Prop 4. I do NOT support this map. Please use the maps created by the independent commission.

This map does a very poor job of meeting the requirements of Prop 4. It continues to split the Salt Lake valley into separate districts, thereby robbing its residents of fair and equal representation. It does not keep communities with similar concerns (urban vs suburban vs rural) together. This map continues to erode confidence in fair election processes.

This map is terrible. Splitting Davis County in two makes no sense.

Looking at how District 1 is drawn is an automatic No on the entire map. Counties should not be divided.

If this map was meant to eliminate gerrymandering, it failed wonderfully. How does the north end of the state have anything to do with the south? The containing of district 2 and 3 to strictly urban areas also goes against the spirit of Prop 4.

Another horribly gerrymandered map. Chops my community in half 300 feet from my house.

This map does not conform to the principles of Utah law as required by Proposition 4. Furthermore, this appears to be skewed to benefit Republicans and the partisan bias of this map should disqualify it from consideration.

This map seems to divide Salt Lake County in a way that does not allow fair representation.

Terrible map, district 1 does not meet the compact district rule and it unnecessarily splits municipalities.

This map ranks low in competitiveness, which means it is unfair.

While this map is slightly better than A, B, or C, it still makes no sense. How would someone living in extreme northwest Utah have the same interests and concerns with someone in extreme southeast Utah. I still feel that the population of Utah Valley will just overpower the voices of my community and will result in less attention being given to smaller communities as the elected official will just need the support of a small geographical area and forget their rural constituents (of which they would have many based on this map).

I undertsand a lot of planning needs to go into creating these maps. But Maps A, B, C, D and E all divide up the state in very interesting and mostly odd fashions. Splitting SLC into several parts and grouping the largest city with extremely rural parts of the state is bizarre.

SLCounty is large enough to hold its own district. One district should exist within the county. Anything else is an example of why we're having this conversation still. No to this map

The maps proposed by the Committee/Legislature need to score higher on competitiveness and proportionality. Utah is not a one party State and the districts should represent that.

This is just wild to split salt lake up this way. I do not like how this map fails to meet the requirements of the voters

I dislike that this map splits salt lake city and the surrounding areas. We demand fair representation!

Dislike. Too many county splits and weak compactness. combines the worst of gerrymandering traits with little competitiveness.

Davis County and Salt Lake County have distinctly different personalities (I know because I've lived in both!). It does not make logical sense that they are merged and south salt lake is cut off. Further, this map also merger rural and urban communities, which have very different needs and should have unique representation.

Vote NO on this map. Are you kidding me? A district that runs from the Idaho border to the Arizona border? In whose universe is that compact? Northern Utah's needs differ greatly from Southern Utah's. Also ranks pretty low for competitiveness and still dilutes the urban vote by cracking similar communities.

This map would be my 4th choice. The Prop 4 guidelines of proportionality and competitiveness are priorities for me, and this map doesn't do well compared to some of the other maps. This one is better than map c.

Splitting Salt Lake the way this map does is an intentional effort to deny what has historically been a significant amount of independent and democratic votes from having representation.

Map D continues to split the Democratic-leaning Counties and Larger Cities into each of the four congressional districts. This deliberate cracking prevents all but the Republicans from forming a majority in any district. We have seen first hand - If one party's victory is virtually guaranteed, extreme policy outcomes prevail; elected officials become less accountable to the electorate and abuse of power corrupts the democratic process by prioritizing political interests over fair representation. Who will buy your housing when the Great Salt Lake blows away?

I have lived in Utah my whole life. I own two properties in Salt Lake County. This map is not a fair representation of my community. It won't allow for representation that knows the specific needs of my area. This is a jerrymandered map that will not allow for unbiased voting. My vote matters. My voice matters. I need representatives that represent me. Do NOT vote for this map.

Map D continues to split the Democratic-leaning Counties and Larger Cities into each of the four congressional districts. This deliberate cracking prevents all but the Republicans from forming a majority in any district. It also splits my personal community, church, and family members.

Splitting up Salt Lake Country in an odd way and does not represent that community. Does not meet requirements of Prop 4

This map does not fairly represent and keep intact communities according to Prop 4 guidelines.

This is another blatant subdivision of SLC area. I also think grouping northern Utah with eastern Utah is not a good balance of representation.

This map has the same representation issues as Maps A, B and C. The needs and concerns of the District 1 residents in Northern Utah would be considerably different than those residents in Vernal and Moab. Same goes for Provo and St. George in District 2. Every community has their unique challenges and deserve fair representation.

I do not support this map as it splits urban voices and priorities into separate districts & does not comply with the standards mandated in Proposition 4. The splitting of Salt Lake County diminishes the voice of both urban and rural priorities. I strongly prefer the Escamilla/ Owens Map.

I do not think this map represents our communities as needed. You split up Salt Lake County which I think is better served as a complete unit. It does do better by separating rural areas and urban areas.

I oppose this map. This map does not allow Salt Lake County to be fairly represented.

This map does not fairly represent all voices in Utah.

This map does not follow the requirements of Prop 4 and I do not support this map. District 3 is clearly gerrymandered with Salt Lake City grouped with Riverton, yet Millcreek is split out to District 4. How does that make any sense?

This map doesn't provide a way for our congressmen to have a well rounded representation of all Utahns.

This map does not follow Proposition 4. This corner-to-corner carving up of the state makes no sense. Regional economies, interests, and geography cannot be adequately represented across 430+ miles.

Strongly oppose. Unfairly splits salt lake county and eliminates opportunity/competition for proportional representation. Prefer Escamilla/Owens.

This map might be my second least favorite (behind C, obviously). The districts group many parts of Utah that will not equally serve community members in rural areas.

This map is better as it only splits the Salt Lake area into 2. But I prefer the Luz/Escamilla map as it keeps SLC mostly together, and doesn't mix urban and rural representation. It still feels weird to have Utah county mixed with the most rural areas.

This map puts all of northern and a portion of southern Utah in the same district. These regions and counties, while all rural, have very different needs. It also splits Salt Lake County so the legislative supermajority can stay in power. This is not a competitive map.

This map does a better job at attempting to keep the urban Salt Lake areas together than maps A, B, or C, but still divides Salt Lake County in strange ways that do not meet the requirements of Prop 4. Why does District 3 group Salt Lake City with Riverton but not Millcreek? That makes no sense at all. Overall I do not support this map.

This map divides Salt Lake City unfairly.

This map tries to keep some Urban areas together, but, there are strange spilts here as in many of the maps. Separating communities like Sugarhouse from Millcreek which is a very connected community. Likewise splitting Layton from Kaysville has a similar effect.

This map breaks the salt lake city area into 2 rather than 4 districts, which is better, but still adheres to gerrymandering practices rather than prop 4 principles.

I don't love this map for how different communities are drawn in a way that directly splits them apart. This may be the best map drawn by the legislature but strange how the urban areas are divided. I do like how the rural areas aren't experiencing a diluted vote because of how the cities are packed together.

This map has issues. It splits Salt Lake County in half; and the border between Districts 3 & 4 is atrocious (Bloomfield Heights is in District 4 but not South Jordan?). District 1 manages to touch the north, east, and south borders of the state all at once. It seems like this map might be an attempt to create four Republican-majority districts without diluting Salt Lake with rural areas?

Map D is unacceptable. It splits key communities like Salt Lake County, weakens urban voices, and clearly favors one party. This map fails the fairness, compactness, and transparency Utah voters demanded in Prop 4. We need representation, not manipulation.

I like the Escamilla/Owens map. While not perfect, it does a much better job of distinctly representing our urban and rural areas. This allows for representation that can better use their limited attention and time on understanding the lifestyle and needs of their constituents. Prop 4 original maps could have been utilized as the judge did not disqualify them.

This map is fairer than the other options, but I don't see why Millcreek is being split into two different districts. Millcreek is a part of Salt Lake County and often shares community interests with SLC.

This map at least makes a stab at a fair split of SL County. But it brings in too many dissimilar communities in the south. Ultimately, I don't like that my home city is cut off from the city I work in and do most of my business in.

This map fails to follow Prop 4 guidelines of keeping cities whole, or keeping counties whole. This map is a no.

This map does not follow Prop 4 guidelines and does not provide a fair and equal opportunity for communities and individuals to have their vote equally represented in the state of Utah. I oppose this option. The Owens map is the fairest map for Utah.

Why is Saratoga Springs carved out here. It doesn't look geographically compact not contiguous.

I don’t like this map, it is better than Map C and E but is still bad. It splits up Salt Lake County which goes against rule #2 “Don’t split municipalities unless absolutely Necessary” and #3 “Keep counties whole”. Why are South and West Jordan split? Why is Bear Lake part of the same proposed district as Salt Lake City? Why is the Brickyard Harmons in proposed district 3?

This map continues to divide the greater Salt Lake area.

This map divides SLC and Salt Lake County, splitting my communities of like interest. My community of interest is SLC, University of Utah, East Bench, Millcreek, Olympus, Sugarhouse, Canyon Rim, Holladay, Sandy, Murray and nearby areas. I spend most of my days in these areas.

This map doesn't follow requirements of prop 4. Still divides communities of interest and undermines community representation by creating unnecessary splits.

This map attempts to make two rural and two urban districts, but some of the choices are absurd. Provo absolutely needs to be included in an urban district. Salt Lake and Utah County voters have separate issues that would be difficult for representatives to address with the groupings shown on this map (option D).

While an attempt to create an urban district, it awkwardly elongates a Northern Utah - Eastern Utah to do so. It just isn't necessary to create these funky mega-districts in order to create 2 urban ones which don't even bring Provo into an urban district.

This map is a clear example of gerrymandering. The way the lines twist around makes no sense geographically or demographically. Communities that share common interests are either split apart or crammed together to reduce their voting power. Maps like this make elections less competitive and weaken the idea that every vote should carry equal weight.

Option D does not seem to represent Utahns well in particular because of the size of the proposed District 1. How could the communities of Logan and Blanding both be represented effectively under the same district? The needs of northern Utah differ significantly of those in southeastern Utah, and this map does not seem to abide by the criteria of Prop 4.

Do not care for this map--splitting SLC and Millcreek not good. I believe that SL County should be kept together as much as possible.

I don't like this map and here's why: 1. If the goal is to remove gerrymandering, then why is the legislative committee so gung-ho on making even the SL county district so uncompetitive? 2. The legislative committee keeps saying it wants to keep communities of interest together, yet it keeps mixing urban, suburban, and rural areas together; each has different concerns, strengths, problems, and needs. 3. The committee touts the fact that the percentage of registered Democratic voters only number in the teens; they ignore the fact the Democratic candidates routinely capture 35-40% of the vote statewide. It’s not the percentage of voters that counts, it’s HOW they vote. 4. And finally, there are many ways to test for partisan bias, each test with its strengths, weaknesses, and appropriateness. The best way to test for bias is to use multiple tests that are appropriate to the situation. The ONE test the legislative committee uses is the least appropriate test for Utah.

This is the worst map of the choices given. What in the world does the east bench of the Salt Lake Valley where I live have in common with the needs of those in Kamas? This map clearly will not meet the needs of either rural or urban communities. Any map that splits Salt Lake County is inherently making it impossible for either community to thrive. The point of having voting districts is to have the representative REPRESENT their constituents needs. The needs of rural and urban communities are simply different. This district map doesn't come close to making anything even close to a representational government system.

This map does a terrible job of keeping districts relatively the same size. Districts 1 and 2 take up the majority of the state while Districts 3 and 4 are unnecessarily compact. Voters in Box Elder County should not have the same representative as voters in Kane County. They have very different constituent needs.

With this map, I would be in a different district from most of the families who go to school with my children. Urban voters like us should not have our interests diluted out by rural parts of the state when it is unnecessary.

Utah's largest population center, Salt Lake City / Salt Lake County, does in fact constitute a legitimate community of interest. The ideas drawn up by the legislature pertaining to communities of interest are frankly arbitrary and meaningless, that for example as long as institutions of higher education are not divided down the middle, that the intended community of interest standard has been met. Talk of an "urban rural mix" is mere partisan code for breaking up Salt Lake. Rural areas are represented and will continue to be represented however map lines are drawn; indeed, what is not currently represented is urban areas, particularly Salt Lake.

Look at the boundary here. This is clearly intended to gerrymander the voters in Davis County. What possible reason could there be for this type of boundary?

While not as bad as Map C, this map still fails to keep a fair distribution of rural and urban voices.

This map fails to keep Salt Lake County, the most populous county in our state with 34% of the entire state’s population as a single community of interest. This map goes against allowing a single group to choose its own representative. This map fails to meet the requirements mandated by court order. The power of the citizenry is diluted with any division of this county. Stop splitting this single most diverse community of interest

I feel this map is the worst of all the options. Still splits Salt Lake County and my neighborhood down the middle and scores low on compactness and competitiveness. A big no on this map.

As an Ogden resident, I find this to be the worst map because of the way District 1 is drawn. It puts me in with too much rural area, with which I have very little in common. District 1 is extremely strung out, stretching all the way from the NW corner to the SE corner of the state.

Combining metro with rural in every district leads to representation that doesn't effectively address the needs of either population (and is obviously done to water down liberals in SLC).

This map is biased and does not fairly represent my community or the Utah communities in general

This map has district 1 which puts northern and southern parts of the state together which doesn't make much sense. Salt lake area and neighborhoods of interest seem to be split along lines that don't make much sense. One of the worse maps.

How is a representative supposed to effectively represent small family farms in Etna AND the residents of Blanding - they are separated by over 500 miles and would take nearly 8 hours to drive from one end to the other. It would pretty much guarantee that most constituents would NEVER see or hear from their representative.

This map is not as gerrymandered as option C but it continues to split Salt lake City. This map dilutes urban and rural representation. Urban and rural needs and are not the same and deserve the correct representation for their communities.

A slight improvement over map C, but still overall not fair and not representative of the guidelines of prop 4. Why is Davis County split up and grouped with SLC and other areas of the state?

This map fails to keep Salt Lake County, the most populous county in our state with 34% of the entire state’s population as a single community of interest. This map goes against allowing a single group to choose its own representative. This map fails to meet the requirements mandated by court order. The power of the citizenry is diluted with any division of this county. Stop splitting this single most diverse community of interest.

I am not in favor of this map due to its low level of proportionality, i.e., matching to statewide vote. This is not in the spirit of Proposition 4.

The proposed maps, A through D, fracture counties along the Wasatch Front and Back with a web of unnecessary lines, undermining the very communities they are meant to represent. This piecemeal approach to redistricting dilutes the collective voice of citizens and stands in direct opposition to the will of the people, who clearly endorsed fairer, community-focused maps through Proposition 4. For the sake of genuine representation, I strongly urge the committee to set these flawed proposals aside and adopt the coherent, minimally-split boundaries crafted by the independent redistricting commission.

While Option D is an improvement over Option C, I’m still concerned about how it splits Salt Lake County and combines urban areas like Sandy with rural regions. This undermines the goal of fair representation and violates the spirit of Proposition 4, which calls for minimizing county splits and preserving communities of interest. I urge the committee to consider a map that keeps Salt Lake County more intact and avoids unnecessary urban-rural pairings.

Maps A, B, C and D are unacceptable; there are too many lines that split up counties, notably counties along the Wasatch Front and Back (Salt Lake, Summit, Utah, etc). Chopping up counties and communities defeats the purpose of representation in Congress. Please go back to the maps created by the independent redistricting commission. They have minimal splits within counties and communities. Utah voters spoke: use the independently drawn boundaries as detailed in Proposition 4 of 2018.

Option D appears to group disparate communities—ones with very different demographic, economic, or social interests—into the same district. That dilutes their shared voice and forces representatives to juggle conflicting priorities rather than championing coherent local goals.

This map is better than C but it breaks up similar communities which should be together for better and fair representation. Such as SLC and Millcreek.

This map still combines disparate urban and rural communities, meaning diluting the voices of both. This does not follow Prop 4.

This map is probably the worst of the bunch. It has the most northern and southern parts of the state in one district. It splits Lindon and Pleasant Grove.

As a lifelong Utah, I am concerned with the Option D map. In a similar way to the other maps, the Option D map dilutes my voice as a voter by blending the Salt Lake Valley’s urban core with rural areas that I don’t have much in common with. This map appears to intentionally dilute more Democratic leaning communities of interest with other Utah communities who have very different concerns. The proposed maps should include at least one district that keeps approximately 817,904 voters from the urban core of Salt Lake County together.

While option D is better than A through C, it's still mixing urban representation with rural. Most of Davis County and Weber County are diluted with all of the northern areas in an effort to create a safe zone for one party over another, and representation for urban and rural areas would dilute each other. Once again, the representatives get to live in the city and never get out to see what rural voters need. This is another attempt to say that they're keeping communities together, but they're not, and once again, Salt Lake County is split to dilute voting power and affect representation. This one is a big dislike.

This is clearly biased

This map breaks up Salt Lake County the same way that the current map does, it's clear that the goal here is to group the more liberal pockets with the rest of the state. This map would likely still result in a 4-0 R-D result. I do like that the boundaries seem to follow breaks in neighborhoods and natural boundaries. There are still significant serpentine borders and shapes. All of the above indicate a lack of care for fair representation in the state of Utah.

Maps A, B, C, and D are unacceptable; there are too many lines that split up counties, notably counties along the Wasatch Front and Back (Salt Lake, Summit, Utah, etc.). Chopping up counties and communities defeats the purpose of representation in Congress. Please go back to the maps created by the independent redistricting commission. They have minimal splits within counties and communities. Utah voters spoke: use the independently drawn boundaries as detailed in Proposition 4 of 2018.

This is almost as gerrymandered as the worst map (C). Voting maps should provide the greatest competitiveness so that candidates of any party can have a chance to win.

District 1 makes no sense geographically, nor demographically. Also splitting Millcreek from SLC smacks of gerrymandering.

This map also doesn't align with Proposition 4. (I'm sensing a theme.) It has even more strange divisions. Why would Grantsville not be grouped with Tooele? How could a single representative effectively represent the border of the state from the northwest to the southeast? Cities and countes are being split unnecessarily, and districts are not compact and do not support ease of travel. This one is somewhat baffling.

This map is a bit better than A,B, and C. But it still splits up Utah County poorly. District maps should not split counties unless absolutely necessary.

This is a little closer to following Prop 4, but at least some of the communities are kept together. South Jordan and Riverton are an abnormal addition to district 3. This still falls short of Prop 4.

There is a literal road that is a boundary going across the map, but someone decided cutting 5 houses in a cul de sac by avoiding any natural boundary other than the property lines of the houses. This is not rationally following the guidelines of prop 4 at all

Option D does not meet the requirements of Proposition 4 or the Court ruling. Once again, this option represents a blatant effort to gerrymander by putting voters from completely different geographical locations with vastly different interests together to dilute the voice of the majority in one area.

A district that stretches from Utah’s northwest corner clear down to the southeast makes little sense and clearly conflicts with the intent of Proposition 4. It’s hard to imagine how one representative could effectively speak for both Logan and Blanding when their communities are so different. The disjointed division of Salt Lake County only adds to the map’s messy, inconsistent design, leaving voters without the fair and balanced representation they were promised.

A district stretching from the northwest corner of the state all the way to the southeast is both messy and blatantly inconsistent with Proposition 4. Seriously—if I lived in Logan or Blanding, I would question how any representative could genuinely serve the vastly different needs of both communities. On top of that, the way Salt Lake County is carved up only adds to the confusion, further fragmenting representation and undermining the principles of fairness and coherence that Prop 4 was intended to uphold.

Bad since it makes 2 representative only represent a small area of Utah.

Why is Salt Lake Valley chopped up? The residents of north and south salt lake have way more in common with the Holladay area than the Tooele area. This should not be adopted. This goes against what the citizens wanted when the VOTED for an independent commission to draw boundaries!

The primary requirement in Prop 4 is maintaining equally sized districts while minimizing city and county splits. While it's true that Salt Lake County needs to be split, this could be done without splitting, or "cracking", communities. I live in Millcreek, two blocks from the district boundary. Splitting my community silences my voice and makes representation in Utah less effective. This "cracking" was my main concern with the current district map, and that concern is not solved with this option.

again diluting the urban vote from the rural vote. not appropriate

This map is biased. So frustrating that none of your maps are following Prop 4. It is obvious you do not care about the 50% of voters that voted for a bipartisan group to create the maps. Rural and urban areas should not be in the same district, they have completely different needs. I do not want a rural person representing me, and rural people do not want an urban dweller representing them.

A district that runs from the NW corner of the state to the SE corner? Seriously? If I lived in Logan or Blanding I would wonder how on earth my representative could truly represent both cities. Not to mention the way Salt Lake County is divided up...

This map is a bit better but District 1 going from north to south doesn't make much sense.

This map does not align with Prop 4. It divides neighborhoods across Salt Lake City separating communities. It ultimately does not fairly represent the Utah voters because it does not group neighborhoods with common concerns and interests. Having these districts represent rural, urban, and suburban voters does not provide equal representation of the voters.

This map is commendable for attempting to provide rural districts with adequete representation. Our interests are better protected when there is not an urban-rural combined district. The alignment of Salt Lake City with West Valley City makes sense here. However, District 1 spanning the entire North-to-South stretch of the state is illogical and ultimately will result in worse democratic representation. The needs of Northern Utah are very different from Southern Utah. I would encourage the members of the committee to look beyond the provided options A through E to maps provided by the bipartisan commission or even the Escamilla Owens map which does a much better job of promoting rural representation.

This map is still dividing urban areas in illogical ways. Not this map. Thank you.

This option is horrible.

I live in Kearns and have a child that goes to Kearns HS. This map splits the school's boundaries in two. How can our students have proper representation with 2 different representatives?

This map cuts up Salt Lake County into multiple pieces dividing Millcreek, where I live. It ignores my neighborhhood. Congressional districts are supposed to be compact and include a community of interest. My community of interest is not only with Millcreek, much of which is not included in my district, but also with Salt Lake City (one street away), Holiday (12 blocks away), and Sandy (10 miles away) where I travel. Finally, any “political bias” test should be ignored. Such a test, directed primarily at states close to 50/50 party divides with “political packing” and not “cracking” problems like Utah, was described in an article published at the end of November 2018 (the earliest), long after Proposition 4 was drafted and after it was adopted by the voters. If the legislature and courts believe in original intent, “political symmetry” means what it did in early 2018 when Prop 4 gained enough signatures.

I do not like that this map breaks Salt Lake County up into more than one district. It doesn't really make sense for a representative to represent the most populous city in the state and many rural areas because the interests of the constituents are likely not the same.

Another blatant gerrymandered map that invalidates my vote. Another carve out of your tax base which contains the highest population, industry and voters who do not support the Legislature agenda.

This map does not conform to the principles of Utah law as per Proposition 4. Specifically, it does not keep cities whole (SLC), it does not keep counties whole (Salt Lake), and it does not preserve neighborhoods and communities. As a Salt Lake City resident, I want to be able to vote with people who share the same community ties as I do. This map does not represent that.

This map awkwardly divides up Salt Lake County. It doesn't makes sense to have districts include suburban areas and geographically distant rural areas.

Please use the redistricting maps drawn by the independent committee!

This map does not give Salt Lake residents proper representation

I don't love this map. It cuts through the county of SLC and separates neighborhoods and communities.

Urban areas have totally different needs than rural areas.  Rural areas have 20% of the population but this map gives them 100% of the representation while the urban areas have 80% of the population and 0 representation.  The only thing this map accomplishes is total gerrymandering.  The Escamilla/Owens map is the only map that represents the state’s population.

This map was close to making a good separate representation for urban and rural, but the way that Salt Lake City is divided ends up representing residents of Salt Lake poorly. Residents in Salt Lake make up one third of our total population and should be able to have their own district. The way this maps splits the county makes it likely that the area will not be represented well.

I oppose the Utah Legislative Redistricting Map D because it undermines fair representation. It separates Millcreek from Salt Lake City and carves up the county in such a way to pair cities that do not share common values.

This map puts park city and parts of southern and northern Utah together and I do not like that

This is the first of the options I've looked at that does actually have an "urban" only option. However, it still splits SL County. Stop splitting SL County and trying to dilute the voice of SL County residents.

This map tears communities apart instead of keeping them together. It divides Salt Lake and Utah counties, pairing them with rural areas where priorities differ significantly. Proposition 4 was passed to guarantee fairness, compactness, and community-centered maps, but this proposal fails on every single one of those standards. My concerns are not being heard by those who represent me, and this map would only make that worse. Utah is home to a diverse population with varied needs and perspectives, and every resident deserves fair representation. This map does not make that possible.

This map has weird divisions between cities and counties, is not aligned with Prop 4 and is poorly designed.

This map is a poor option. Too many county splits to be in line with Prop 4.

This map dilutes a voting block that does not have representation in Congress, yet represents at least 30% of voters in Utah during nearly all elections

This map dilutes a voting block that does not have representation in Congress, yet represents at least 30% of voters in Utah during nearly all elections

The rules on whether or not something is gerrymandered created by the majority Republican legislatures are absolutely bonkers. I cannot in good conscience trust anything that comes from them or this "expert" that they hired.

I do not support this map; it seems biased.

This map seems biased and does not fairly represent all Utah voices.

I don't think this fairly represents the population of Utah

This map seems the least biased and most aligned with Prop 4 of the maps put forth by the Utah Legislative Redistricting Committee, but there are far better options as proposed by the Independent Redistricting Committee and other maps proposed. Please choose a map that was proposed by the INDEPENDENT Redistricting Committee.

My priority is to create voting districts that keep Urban and Rural communities together- so that each gets the representation they deserve for their unique circumstances. I believe Map D will unfairly minimize voter voices in, and the specific needs of, Urban areas. I support the Map preferred by the IRC over any put forth by the Legislature’s Redistricting Committee.

No. Does not fairly represent our population, which is the goal of Prop 4.

NO thank you!

An obvious Gerrymander in favor of GOP and the formalization of non-competitive elections. This map does not achieve the intent of Prop 4 and clearly demonstrates the GOP goal of a permanent super majority. To so brazenly attempt to bypass the will of constituents shows nothing but contempt for them and in your role in our democracy. The clear hurdles to making a public comment and obfuscating the fact that these are not the original Prop 4 maps speaks volumes about the intention eliminate minority voices.

I am a public education teacher living in Murray and working in the West Valley area. This map is an improvement, but still not good enough. Communities in West Jordan are completely divided from their neighbors in South Jordan and they need to ability to work together to improve their communities. I also feel that its unfair to divide communities like Riverton from Bluffdale. I am opposed to this map. Our new map should bring communities together, not divide them.

It doesn't seem necessary to divide Lindon from Pleasant Grove and American Fork, putting Provo, Orem, and surrounding cities with all of the rural southern Utah cities while Pleasant Grove is in the same district as Murray. The reason the orange and brown districts extend so far southward is that the SLC suburbs, despite being a major population center, have been unnecessarily carved up. This is better than options C and E but falls very short under the requirement of dividing neighborhoods well and having compact and sensible geographical boundaries (see Saratoga Springs).

As a resident of Salt Lake County's westside, I truly dislike how we have been split up. Map C is a much better option.

This map splits Davis County and too many municipal areas

This is a terrible representation of putting Salt Lake City and Davis County together is clearly gerrymandering and trying to dilute the Democratic vote, also putting Park City in District 1 and separating from from Salt Lake City. The other thing that makes no sense as a former Taylorsville / WVC resident the split of Taylorsville from Kearns WVC makes no sense.

Not the best option.

For Map D, District 3 contains the greatest concentration of Salt Lake County residents at 656,500. Unfortunately, the map still cracks Salt Lake County across several Districts. An additional 161,404 individuals in Salt Lake County could still be included in District 3 without exceeding the population ceiling. Millcreek and the Country Club should be included in District 3 not District 4 which would help consolidate SL County without exceeding the populations limit.

Low in competetiveness.

I just moved 5 minutes south of my previous residence. I would now be a new district despite being in the same community. I use a grocery store and park in a separate district. This map makes it easier for the same politicians to keep their seats, not represent my community and livelihood. I have a master's degree in GIS mapping and this map was not well made.

This map disrespects my community of Cottonwood Heights by separating us from the rest of SL County. This map divides many Salt Lake County communities and dilutes their voices with rural areas that do not share our interests!

This map fails to meet the standards outlined in Proposition 4. The Escamilla-Owens map is the better option.

I don't like this map. I thought the whole idea of a map was to have logical boundries between districts, but this makes no sense. It just slices up a whole lot of cities all across the wasatch front. This seems like gerrymandering

This map divides Salt Lake City and is still pretty gerrymandered

This map is better than A,B and C because it tries harder to honor the rural/city divide between communities. If the SLC County line was drawn with the East Bench and communities along the east of 1-15 instead of the far west, it would be much better. That is a more similar community.

Maps A and C look similar, with Map C being the most grievous, and both are heavily gerrymandered and ignore the high priority requirements of keeping counties and cities whole and preserving communities of interest. Map B is a blatant attempt to split an urban area and ignore fair representation for both the western area of Utah and Salt Lake County. Map D has strange cutouts and appears gerrymandered. Map E also has unusual cutouts but of the 5 proposed maps looks least harmful. The Escamilla/Owens map seems to be the best regarding cities, counties and communities of interest together.

These maps (A-D) fail to meet the standards set by Proposition 4, which was passed to ensure fair, transparent, and nonpartisan redistricting. The maps divide communities, reflect partisan bias, and lack transparency—directly contradicting the intent of Prop 4. Utah voters demanded fairness, and these maps do not deliver.

This is a no for me. As a resident of southern Utah, I don't think this is the best representation of our rural interests, nor do I think it is adequate for urban areas. The Escamilla Owens map is a better option.

The worst possible option, District 1 should not encircle most of the state to represent the forests of northern Utah all the way to the red rocks and Glenn Canyon, this is absurd in every way. District 1 should represent northern Utah and its federal civil and military installations, the capital Salt Lake City should be its own district as the most populous, and the large cities of Utah County: Orem, Provo, etc. should have their own representative as well. Southern Utah is a distinct region with mineral intense industries, extreme drought and water pressures which deserve their own representation.

I do not support this map, it is not the fair representation that Utahns voted for and deserve from our government.

I do not support this redistricting map

Maps A-D are still heavily gerrymandered and clearly trying to separate out communities that have similar interests. Stop the cheating and corruption please; start being ethical. Map E is a bit closer to the intended target but still separates SL county. The Escamilla/Owens map does the best job of keeping urban together and rural together.

Once again, this map splits up East Salt Lake County with arbitrary lines. East Salt Lake County (Holladay/Millcreek) belong in the same district as Salt Lake City. We have similar priorities and need unified representative. This map cuts up Salt Lake County in an arbitrary way.

Why would Sugar House and MillCreek be in two different CDs? This is yet another craven attempt to keep Salt Lake County residents split to dilute their vote and the representation we deserve.

For Map D, District 3 contains the greatest concentration of Salt Lake County residents at 656,500 but is still cracked and well below the population ceiling of 817,904. An additional 161,404 individuals in Salt Lake County could still be included in District 3 without exceeding the population ceiling. Millcreek and the Country Club should be included in District 3 not District 4.

This map uses arbitrary lines to split up Salt Lake County. While it is necessary to split Salt Lake County since due to the population size, I would like to see a map that includes the Southern portion of the SLC and Utah County represented in the same district instead of splitting up SL County while Utah County remains unsplit. This map does not comply with Prop 4.

I worry that the socioeconomic realities of our state are being exploited to the detriment of our citizens in this map. As far as property value and household income, I don't believe this map is fair and representative of a wide variety of residents.

This map still does not follow Prop 4 rules and regulations. This map is not following the voice of the Utah voters.

Better than A,B, or C, but still bad

This map still has me crossing multiple district lines for my day-to-day errands. There's no reason for West & South Jordan to be separated, or any of the following doglegs: District 3 into District 4 by Xanadu; District 4 into District 2 multiple times between Eagle Mountain and Seratoga Springs; District 2 into District 4 around Sundance; District 4 into District 1 around Sundance; the split of Wasatch State Park by Districts 1 and 4; and District 3 into District 1 south of Syracuse.

This map is not a fair representation of the Utah communities.

This is an unfair map and does not meet the intentions of Prop 4. Division of Salt Lake County is diluting the voice of those voters in favor of rural less populated areas of the state. Prop 4 calls for keeping communities of interest intact to avoid favoritism of a political party. This map does the opposite.

This map is not proportional in the way districts are represented. Regardless of party affiliation, everyone should be comfortable with districting that allows the electorate to be fairly represented.

This map scores the worst on compactness. Communities of interest should stay together.

This map looks like an attempt at a 'fair' map, but it still doesn't meet the intentions of Prop 4 passed by voters and upheld by the courts. It dilutes the urban vote by unnecessarily pairing them with rural counties. This map still promotes gerrymandering, which was the specific issue the voters sought to correct with Prop 4. Don't resort on just the 'one fair test' approach! Uphold all of Prop 4!

This map seems like a halfhearted attempt to make two urban districts, but does not do a very good job at making cohesive districts at making communities. The Escamilla-Owens map does much better at this.

This proposal at least keeps Salt Lake City intact. But, even then, it tries to dilute the voice of Salt Lakers by placing them in a district where they will be outnumbered by rural voters. This is another attempt to continue to give rural voters domination over all four congressional districts.

Map D may be the "best of the worst." It keeps Salt Lake and half of Utah County as a compact district. By splitting Utah County, and Salt Lake County, this map still does not adhere to the spirit of the law passed by voters that required "traditional communities" be kept together.

I do not approve of this map. It seems to dilute representation for the majority of the districts.

This map while seeming to keep urban and rural communities more distinct than other maps flies in the face of rule 3. it splits so many counties. It also violates rule 4 with district 1 sprawling from the furthest north to the furthest south. While this does contain many rural communities it does not allow for the separate needs of north and south to be represented. It also has weird lines that seem to violate rule 6. While this is less offensive than maps A, B, and C, I think that the Escamilla/Owens Map allows for better representation of communities and citizens in Utah.

The concept of keeping the urban center more together is correct, but poorly implemented here. The Escamilla Owens Map does it better. Lindon, Orem, and Provo are more similar to the northern Utah county cities than the vast counties to the south.

I strongly dislike urban/rural districts. I am lumped in with people hundreds of miles away who have completely different interests. My federal representatives continuously post about how much they love their rural constituents and meanwhile ignore or even belittle urban constituents. Utah needs at least one urban district. Since 90% of Utahns live in urban areas, there should ideally be 2 urban districts.

We need a non partisan group to prepare maps for us. This map splits SL county again. It does not address the requirements of Proposition 4.

This map divides numerous communities. Why put Stansbury Park and Tooele City in separate districts?

This map does not meet the requirements of Proposition 4 voted on by Utahns and upheld by the judiciary. This splits communities unnecessarily and diluting the voices of those who live in those communities.

I live by Ogden, so most of the maps are the same for me. I feel like I should only comment on maps that affect my district. Who am I to tell other districts what to do? I don't understand the logic for my district on this map, unless you are just trying to compensate for other districts.

This map splits multiple cities and counties instead of keeping cities and counties together as required by the law we passed. It again seems more bent on cutting places out in order to disenfranchise voters. As such as strongly oppose this map, considering there are other maps that are much more representative and do not split so many cities and counties while still being competitive and representative.

I oppose this map. This map combines Northern Utah and Southern Utah. Both of those areas have very different needs and won't be represented effectively in Congress. It also does not follow Proposition 4.

This map does not honor the intent of the independent redistricting ballot initiative that was passed by the majority of Utahns. It unfairly divides neighborhoods in densely populated urban areas, which should share a common representative. This map is a clear gerrymander and has clear partisan bias.

This is the most stereotypically gerrymandered map proposed. The three most rural corners of the state grouped together with place like Layton and Park City. How would one person fairly fight for the varied interests of all of those areas?

American Fork is split from Orem but combined with Mill Creek? Salt Lake is combined with Riverton, but the district conveniently misses the entire center of the Salt Lake Valley? Anybody who understands the dynamics of Utah communities can immediately see that these districts split communities with shared values rather than keeping them intact as intended by Prop 4. Communities with shared values should be kept together so they can be represented by someone with their values.

This is an improvement but the meandering borders making obscure shapes in highly populated regions is an obvious sign that these are drawn with more than population count in mind.

This map is deeply flawed and should not move forward. It repeats the same gerrymandering tactics Utah Courts have already rejected, carving Salt Lake County into multiple districts and pairing urban neighborhoods with distant rural areas that share little in common. I could change districts multiple times just by walking up and down the street near my house. Communities like Sugar House, Millcreek, and South Salt Lake are arbitrarily split, while voters in Murray or Taylorsville are lumped with places as far away as Moab or Vernal. These choices ignore the requirements of Proposition 4—compactness, minimizing county and city splits, and keeping communities of interest intact—and instead dilute the voices of both urban and rural Utahns. Voters passed Prop 4 to stop exactly this kind of manipulation. Representation should be about keeping neighbors together, not dividing them for partisan gain. Reject this map.

Prop 4 Standards: - Equal Population: Met, with no deviations. - Minimize division of counties, cities, and towns: Not met. Divides Davis County (Kaysville, Layton), Tooele County (Grantsville, Tooele, Erda), Wasatch County (splits ski resorts). - Geographically compact and continuous districts: Not Met. District 1 wraps around the state. - Preserve Traditional neighborhoods and communities of interest: Not Met. Divisions in SLC, Wasatch County (Ski areas), and Tooele County have not been preserved. - Follow natural and geographic features: Not Met. Divides geographic areas around the Great Salt Lake, Wasatch Front. Does not follow major transit corridors.

This map is better than some others, but it's unfortunate that Salt Lake County voters like me have once again been deprived of our own district. I understand that some members of the legislature honestly believe that they know what's best for everyone and that they're doing the right thing here, but their anti-democratic prejudice against me and my neighbors in Salt Lake County is really disheartening. Tooele County voters have a lot more in common with other less densely populated counties on Utah's western border -- and I say that as someone who grew up there.

This map is marginally better than Options A, B and C but it still does not meet the requirements of Prop 4 or Judge Gibson's order. It still splits up Salt Lake County with the intent of ensuring Republicans will hold all 4 seats in the House.

This map fails the core standards Utah voters set in Proposition 4 – minimizing city/county splits, preserving communities of interest, ensuring compactness and contiguity, and avoiding partisan engineering – and it should not advance. It carves Salt Lake County into multiple districts, diluting the state’s largest population center and splicing walkable neighborhoods like Sugar House and Millcreek, Sandy and South Jordan, Kaysville and Layton, and Riverton and Draper. It also separates natural peer communities such as Provo and Orem and pairs urban cores with far-flung rural regions that share few practical priorities. The result is a patchwork that weakens local voices instead of amplifying them. Geographically, District 1 stretches north–south across the state in a way that’s neither compact nor intuitive, while other districts snake to scoop or exclude pockets, ignoring recognizable boundaries and even newly aligned school-district lines. Several shapes look engineered to split dense areas rather than keep them whole, undercutting competitiveness and representation in the very places where most Utahns live and work. Yes, this map may be marginally better than options A–C in a few respects, but it still misses the mark. A fair plan should: keep Salt Lake County far more intact; keep urban with urban and rural with rural; reunite obvious community pairs (e.g., Provo–Orem, Sandy–South Jordan, Kaysville–Layton, Riverton–Draper); reduce county and city splits; and redraw District 1 into a genuinely compact, contiguous region. Until those fixes are made, this remains a politicized configuration – not a community-first map – and it does not honor the letter or spirit of Prop 4.

Some weird splits happening around West Jordan and South Jordan. This map isn't the worst option but still far from the best.

This map splits way too many communities, particularly those in SL County.

This map is better in that it divides the major population center up into tow large voting blocks. However, it feels like the borders of this map are very hand selected and divides communities a little too much. This is the better of the 2 maps submitted by the house, but still not my favorite. Our government isn't listening to the people, they are playing every game in the book. Stop playing games and represent the will of the people.

This map appears to divide many communities and does not adequately consider the distinct needs of rural versus urban areas, particularly between northern and southern regions. The splitting of Salt Lake County into multiple districts raises concerns about how well communities are kept intact. Additionally, combining western Utah with areas like Park City, Salt Lake County, and Ogden does not align with the intent of minimizing divisions of municipalities and counties, and it seems to overlook geographic barriers and natural separations. A more balanced approach could better respect community boundaries and geographic features.

I think the current districting is gerrymandered and unfair representation. This map is not great. I have been so UNHAPPY with utah reps and they continue to make terrible choices with terrible consequences for your constituents. Do not use this map. Stop gerrymandering and voter suppression.

I do not support this map. This map doesn't address the differences in rural needs and the nuances between the northern climate and the southern.

This divides many communities. It looks like Salt Lake County is split into more than one District. Western part of Utah being combined into a District with Park City, Salt Lake County, Ogden so very different rural and urban areas does not meet the intent of Proposition 4.

This map unevenly divides urban areas and splits up too many like communities.

This map is a joke and shouldn't have even been submitted as an option. A slap the face for Utahans. Doesn't meet prop 4.

This maps splits up Salt Lake City, which is not following prop 4 rules. It is not following geological or community boundaries.

District 1 is not compact. It contains north and south Utah in one district.

Splits up Salt Lake City and separates neighborhoods, although not as bad as some of them.

this map doesn't follow the guidelines of prop 4. my neighbor across the street shouldn't be in a different district. This map does not allow for good representation

Very unreasonable separation of districts

Map D does not meet the criteria for Proposition 4. The criteria of 'Minimizing Divisions of Municipalities and Counties' is blatantly ignored (as you can see by the lines of District 2 & District 3). Which, also does not meet the criteria of 'Contiguity'. This map doesn't respect geographic barriers (you've literally lumped northern and eastern Utah together).

Not the worst of the proposed maps. This map under represents the most populated regions, who should have their voices represented equitably by those who are elected.

Better than C but not by much still breaking up the county in a way to stack the voters towards one side

Not a good map. Too many arbitrary divisions with no concern for city/county boundaries.

This map fails to keep Salt Lake County, the most populous county in our state with 34% of the entire state population as a single community of interest. This map goes against allowing a single group to choose its own representative. The power of the citizenry is diluted with any division of this county.

Not as bad as option C but still pretty bad. Violates Prop 4. Needs significant improvements in proportionality, competitiveness, and compactness.

I got involved because I am a veteran and civil servant. I have seen firsthand that fairness and appropriate representation makes us all better together. Right now as lawmakers are drawing new maps, it is critical that communities are represented fairly. This matters because it is a chance to do better and keep communities like mine together and give every part of Utah a real voice. This is what democracy looks like and what I served our country to protect. That's why I am asking the legislature to pass a map that reflects the intent of Prop 4 and Utah's residents, and this map does not achieve that goal. This map includes northern Utah with Southern Utah, and we have very different needs and concerns, it splits Davis County and mixes urban areas and rural areas which have limited common interests/needs. The goal should be to ensure fair representation. If we choose the Escamilla/Owens map or Map B there is a better chance of achieving the goals of Prop 4 so that every county will have fair representation.

Map D is less bad than options A, B, or C in that much of Salt Lake County is kept together. To divide southern SL County to vote with northern Utah County dilutes voices from both areas, and the splitting Sugar House from Millcreek is not keeping communities of interest together. I prefer the Escamilla-Owens map or one of the ones drawn by the UIRC.

This is not a good faith attempt to comply with Proposition 4.

The sweep of a north to south doesn't make sense. The communities have unique issues and should have separate representation.

I do not like this map. It should not divide Salt Lake County up into multiple districts. This unfairly dilutes voters within the city.

Splits up Salt Lake County and doesn’t meet the standards of Proposition 4. Lame. Let people with shared issues and concerns vote together.

Option D fails the Prop 4 requirements. This not an acceptable map that follows the requirements of Prop 4 that the people of Utah voted for.

Splitting Salt Lake County is unacceptable. Including Orem and Provo in with rural desert country towns is likewise a disservice to the needs of rural, urban, and suburban citizens. We need separate voices working together, compromising together, not single voices dictating the needs of the one and imposing on the other to meet them without compromise.

This map does not follow the requirements of Proposition 4. It divides Salt Lake County into multiple districts in a way that stretches across very different regions and communities, which weakens compactness and undermines community representation. The map creates unnecessary splits that fail to keep communities of interest intact.

This map does not comply with proposition 4, splitting municipalities, rampant subdivision of counties, no alignment whatsoever with keeping communities cohesive between geographic communities, mass subdivision of cities, and clear gerrymandering.

Multiple counties are split. Literally a split blocks from my house in Sugarhouse. I envision a walkable distance with my dog as my community. This means in this version, my 'community' is split on 2 (east and south) borders. I believe this does not represent the intention of the court's order.

This map divides counties more frequently than necessary, which runs against the principle of minimizing splits. The shapes of several districts are less compact and harder to explain based on geography. Although it performs reasonably on reflecting statewide balance, the lack of competitiveness and extra county divisions weaken its alignment with the goals of fair redistricting.

Map 236 shows incremental adjustments to congressional and legislative boundaries, reflecting attempts to balance urban and rural representation while addressing growth along the Wasatch Front. However, this map divides cohesive communities, particularly in Salt Lake County, diluting the political voice of urban voters by pairing them with distant rural regions. It does not reflect the spirit or intent of Proposition 4! DISLIKE!!!

Please stick to Proposition 4.

Map D should be rejected because it does not comply with the requirements set by Proposition 4. The law requires that redistricting minimize the splitting of counties and cities, protect communities of interest, and avoid unnecessary gerrymandering. Map D fails on these measures by dividing Salt Lake County into multiple districts, scattering municipalities, and pairing urban areas with far-flung rural communities that do not share common priorities. This approach weakens representation, dilutes community voices, and directly conflicts with the standards Utah voters put in place through Proposition 4. I urge the commission to dismiss Map D and focus on maps that truly honor the intent of Prop 4—keeping communities intact, compact, and fairly represented.

This map is clearly divided in a way to silence urban voices. It does not logically group individuals in their communities with shared interests.

Option D is contrary to the spirit of Proposition 4.

I have lived in Sugar House for over 40 years. It doesn't make sense to split off our urban south neighborhoods in favor of Davis county. Salt Lake City urban area deserves to be together as we have unique issues I want to see represented.

This map, once again, splits up neighbors and communities who live on the same street... Sugarhouse is split in two different districts. Voters voted for FAIR maps and representation. this is an attempt to deny that.

I dislike that this map doesn't score well on additional tests beyond the partisan bias test when evaluating boundaries. Using other common tests like The Efficiency gap, the mean-median difference, and an ensemble analysis should be a priority to the legislature.

This map is not a good at Map B for differentiating between rural and suburban and urban areas. It is clearly better than Map A, but still ignores the real different interests and needs of communities.

Districts 3 and 4 look like great candidates for the Gerrymandered Alphabet (where the letters are formed from gerrymandered districts throughout the U.S.). Weird community splits. Stop dividing up SLC county.

Salt Lake City is split into three, the map clumps SLC literally with areas at the northern, eastern, and western ends of the state. Does not meet the requirement for Prop 4.

This isn't a good representation of the Utah voters. It dilutes in favor of the GOP candidates and minimizes other voting blocks for the state. There are also some odd divides on some of the cities and rural areas too. Also has the lowest score with the redistricting guidelines.

This map breaks up communities. It does not provide fair representation. It appears to be drawn for partisan purposes. It looks nothing like any of the maps drawn by the non-partisan independent redistricting committee in 2021. The district court is likely to reject this map if it is chosen.

Clearly gerrymandered. This is a terrible map, and it's a bad-faith attempt for party-based control, which is what we're trying to fix in the first place.

Clearly gerrymandered. This is a bad faith attempt to follow prop 4. As a resident of Sandy, I cannot support this map because it breaks Salt Lake County into multiple small districts instead of treating the Wasatch Front as one community. The compactness is bad, snaking district line around the state to pick and choose what communities get included where.

Salt Lake County should not be split up in this fashion. We deserve to have a voice in Washington that is like minded. 1 party rule does not result in good governance as those in power have no reason to work for the people they represent. They know they will stay in power as long as they desire by simply having an (R) behind their name on the ballot. Salt Lake County deserves better.

No on this map. Urban Salt Lake County should be kept relatively compact. It is impossible to not split it, but it deserves a split that keeps communities together better than this.

Does not meet the requirements of Prop 4

Why would someone who lives near the four corners have the same rep as someone in Cache Valley?

I don't think this map follows the spirit of prop 4.

Not the worst, but far from the best.

This map still does not follow prop 4. it isn't the worst of them though. its in the middle. use map B as it most closely aligns with Prop 4 and then actually follow the laws from prop 4 at the next usual redistricting map change after then next census.

This does not follow the intent of Prop 4 and does not provide a fair and equal opportunity for communities and individuals to have their vote equally represented in the state of Utah.

Let's follow reasonable lines and support interest of all communities. While somewhat better than other options, this one is still clearly making attempts at diluting and dividing the voices of the Salt Lake area

This one still cuts up too much of SLC and rural communities. Doesn't match the intent of Prop 4.

I do not support this map and do not think it should be considered in the final decision as it is not representative at the national level of what the our people and population truly believe and need.

The map does not comply with the requirements of Proposition 4. It creates unnecessary splits that break apart communities of interest, weakening representation.

Does not follow Prop 4 requirements as well as the Escamilla-Owens map, but is not as bad as A, B, or C

This map does not support the goal of Prop 4. It divides a large population center into at least 3 districts. The fragmenting of cities and counties in maps A-E is inconsistent with the intent of Prop 4, and undermines fair representation. The only map that truly seems to embrace the intent of Prop 4 is the Escamilla/Owens map.

disregards prop 4.

I don't love the rural split, and cities should not be divided. I also feel it is incredibly wrong to split the newly created school district that will be starting up and already has challenges to overcome - there is no rational reason to split between Lindon and Pleasant Grove. I have been disenfranchised as a voter since we moved to Utah, mostly because I feel one political party should not have all of the power. We need balance, moderation, and an understanding that people have different needs and opinions, and that all are valid.

Dividiing Sugarhouse and Millcreek into two different districts is unfair and doesn't align with the intentions of Prop 4. Overall, this map divides a large population center (salt lake city) along with many other neighborhoods and city into at least 3 districts. I do not believe this makes sense in any logical sense and is unfair to the community of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. The constant fragmenting of cities and counties I see in maps D is inconsistent with the intent of Prop 4, and undermines fair representation.

I want to say I like this map better as Sandy isn't grouped with southeast Utah for once, but I feel like where the lines are drawn are not around similar communities. Why is South Jordan split from Sandy? When driving through you literally can't tell a difference when going from one to the other, and if that isn't a similar demographic, then I don't know what is.

This map is inconsistent with the intent of Prop 4. It divides the largest population center and merges it with rural areas, while also fragmenting counties and cities, which undermines fair representation.

I don't like how this makes CD-1 so big, other versions have contiguous, neighboring counties grouped together in a way that is driveable in a long day. Our CDs should be reasonably compact and group people together, map D doesn't do that.

Although this map is closer to the intent of Prop 4, it still combines Salt Lake County with parts of Davis and Tooele counties. Salt Lake County should be its own district.

This map is trying to dilute SLC’s voice. We want the map made by an independent agency. This map overall is not fair representation of Utah votes.

E and D are the two least fair maps, this map does not fit the rules laid out and is the worst possible option.

.

Does not represent Utahns

This map is better, but still does not follow the requirements of proposition 4. Please use one of the maps that was put together by the independent commission that we voted for.

This map does not meet the criteria for prop 4. It splits up communities and is not competitive at all due to splitting up Salt Lake Counting. Do better than this.

This map does a poor job of keeping key urban and rural areas separated although it at least focuses on keeping some city limits intact. Its a poor map that does not effectively support the goals and requirements of Prop 4.

Worst option. Not competative and poorly proportioned.

Map D requires 1 of the 4 congressmen to travel clear from the NORTH WEST CORNER of the state all the way down to the SOUTH EAST CORNER. That is an unfair burden for one single congressman!

This map does not keep cities whole, is not compact, does not have contiguous districts, and does not preserve communities of interest. It is not aligned with Prop 4 and should not be chosen. I am opposed to this map.

The lines of these maps are so wonky, they look drawn by Willy Wonka. Awful map. Splitting communities in ways that will impact marginalized communities and disadvantaged voters. I vote NO on this map.

NO! This is just more of a power grab by the Utah Super Majority Republican Legislature.

This is still gerrymandered. Fascinating how D4 envelopes the east side and Northeastern Utah County + West Jordan. Splitting WJ and South Jordan feels ridiculous as well. Grade: D

This does not minimize county splits as it splits 5 counties. Salt lake county especially has unique interested and should be kept as a compact district

This map does not meet the requirements of Proposition 4 and unnecessarily splits communities. We need a solution that closely matches the citizens' wishes as outlined in Prop 4.

Most of District 3 is the lake. This map is a failure.

This map does not meet the requirements of Proposition 4. It is not fair, focused and functional. District 1 is sprawling -- the representative will be unable to effectively cover that geographic territory.

This map falls short of fair representation. It disregards Proposition 4 and breaks apart communities of interest, which takes away Utahns’ ability to be accurately represented. We need maps that keep communities together and reflect the voices of the people.

This map does not meet the requirements of Proposition 4.

I do not believe this map meets the intent of prop 4.

Rural areas of South Eastern Utah should not be mixed with Urban areas of SLC. This map does not uphold the mission of Proposition 4. Our needs in Grand and San Juan County are utterly distinct.

I strongly dislike this map. I live in the same county as most of my family, and this splits us into different districts.

This map does not accurately represent Salt Lake, as it divides communities that would otherwise be together.

This map is better, but it still splits Salt Lake County. There is no objective reason to split Salt Lake County's voters, where they live in the same geographic space and have similar issues and concerns. Salt Lake County should not be split and combined with Tooele County, where voters have significantly different issues and concerns.

This map does not give fair representation. The only fair map is the Escamilla Owens Map.

This one is a little better than some of the other options, but I still don't like splitting up my area of southern utah with so much urban. Our constituencies are just so different and have so many different needs.

This map is another example of "packing" and "cracking" the demographics with the intent to dilute non-GOP voting. It disproportionality dilutes in favor of GOP candidates and minimizes the growing non-GOP voting block in the State.

This map does NOT align with voter-supported Proposition 4. It does not create compact, contiguous districts nor does it keep municipalities and communities of interest together. It unnecessarily splits Salt Lake County with the goal of disenfranchising Salt Lake City voters. UT voters approved Prop 4 so that their needs could be adequately represented in Congress.

This map does not follow the law. It inappropriately splits Salt Lake County at the neighborhood level. It still has gerrymander violations.

This map does not follow the law. It inappropriately splits Salt Lake County at the neighborhood level. Someone traveling for daily activities would easily cross district boundaries.

This map is terrible. It completely ignores the Prop 4 criteria. It is unfair. It splits communities, stretches across vastly different communities, and is poorly compact.

This map does not follow Prop 4. I do not support this map.

Another map to disconnect SLC residents from others who are aligned, like myself in a neighboring community. Please listen to the voters and stop finding dishonest ways to gerrymander the map. Follow the third party recommendations!

This map does not give proper representation of Utah in Washington DC.

Map D seems to intentionally disregard what we voted for in Prop 4. This is by far the worst map for fairness and representation of our cities and communities. We want a good competition, prove that you deserve to win our votes. This isn't the way.

This Map D is the second best map after the Escamilla/Owens Map, which is much better. I do not like how Salt Lake is split up in Map D. All Utahns deserve a voice of representation in Washington. The Escamilla/Owens Map most closely matches the objectives of Proposition 4.

This map flagrantly disregards the standards laid out by Prop 4: Salt Lake County is split 4 ways, the districts are not compact, the neighborhoods and communities within Salt Lake County are not preserved, and there is minimal regard for natural boundaries. This map is deeply against the spirit and intent of Prop 4.

This map is terrible and doesn't meet the requirements of Prop 4. Salt Lake county shouldn't be split in this way and this map should not be chosen. The voters of Utah must be given fair and proper maps!

This map splits 5 counties. Few splits mean clearer representation and less confusion for voters. Map C with only 3 splits does a better job following Prop 4's intent to be more concise and fair.

This map is about as bizarre as any of them. Weird distribution of SLC into 2 districts and concentrating urban and rural separately. All the while putting a large concentrations of democrats into one district. Cheeky.

once again, too many obvious gerrymander violations. this map is clearly splitting communities up into weird boundaries to best dilute the influence voters have in one district over another. its unacceptable.

once again, too many obvious gerrymander violations. this map is clearly splitting communities up into weird boundaries to best dilute the influence voters have in one district over another. its unacceptable.

once again, too many obvious gerrymander violations. this map is clearly splitting communities up into weird boundaries to best dilute the influence voters have in one district over another. its unacceptable.

once again, too many obvious gerrymander violations. this map is clearly splitting communities up into weird boundaries to best dilute the influence voters have in one district over another. its unacceptable.

As a resident of Sandy, I cannot support this map because it breaks Salt Lake County into multiple small districts instead of treating the Wasatch Front as one community. This is the largest population center in the state, and people here share common concerns about housing, air quality, water, and transportation. Instead of recognizing that reality, this map divides the Salt Lake Valley into several different districts and then ties those pieces to rural areas that do not share the same needs. This approach weakens representation for Sandy and the rest of Salt Lake County. When our community is divided into smaller slices, none of the districts end up being centered on the urban core. Each one is dominated by other regions, whether that is northern Utah, rural central Utah, or the western desert counties. That means our priorities are spread too thin and do not carry the weight they should. The districts also do not look compact or logical. Rather than using county lines or natural boundaries, the map carves Salt Lake County apart in a way that feels designed to weaken the voice of the Wasatch Front. For residents, that creates confusion about who represents us and undermines confidence that the lines were drawn fairly. Proposition 4 requires maps to keep counties and cities whole whenever possible, to preserve communities of interest, and to avoid splitting up neighborhoods unnecessarily. This map fails those standards. It treats the most populous area of Utah as something to divide rather than to represent. I want a map that gives Sandy and the Salt Lake Valley a clear and united voice. This map does the opposite, and that is why I oppose it.

Fair maps strengthen communities by keeping neighborhoods whole. This proposal deliberately carves them up, leaving people on the same street in different districts and ensuring broken representation instead of unity.

I want to see district boundaries that do not split communities but allow people living in the same neighborhood to be represented by the same representatives, not to have a different district a block away. This map is convoluted to achieve the opposite result: broken communities and inconsistent representation.

This splits the Salt Lake Valley in a strange configuration, which doesn't seem representative of the area.

This map does not follow the rules of prop 4. We want fair maps and fair representation, keep communities together!

This map splits too many cities and counties. It also ignores the unique concerns of urban and rural areas.

This map should not be considered because it was not drawn by the UIRC, and is not consistent with any maps drawn by the UIRC. The point of Proposition 4 was to have maps drawn by UIRC.

Horrible map. Stop splitting up communities. Rural and urban have different needs. Respect the voters.

This splits communities. How is this a fair representation? Stop gerrymandering and start being American. We need to represent communities and the only way to do that is to keep them together.

Horribly gerrymandered map here. Obviously drawn by a democrat. People are complaining that those in Rural areas have different needs from a city as a reason to keep SLC together and separate from everywhere else. Answer this: How does Wendover in the same area as St. George make any more sense? Wendover with the west portion of SLC makes much more sense. Remember these CAN'T be neighborhood districts. That's not what CONGRESSIONAL districts are for. That's what City, County, and State districts are for. We have only 4 seats in congress and we need to make sure each representative in congress is aware that Utah has Urban AND Rural needs. Each of them needs to be in tune with that to help the state as a whole. Just because the Rural area is in your Urban area doesn't mean you'll be less represented or worse represented. It means your representative has other viewpoints to consider what is best for the state.

All of these maps are anti-democracy. Over 1/3 of the population of the entire state is in the Salt Lake Metropolitan Area and we should have our own districts.

I prefer the Escamilla/Owens map over this map. This map does not minimize city/county divisions, divides communities, and does not offer proportional and competitive voter outcomes.

This map divides not only Salt Lake City, but Mill Creek and Sugar House. Irregular districts. Does not follow the principles of Proposition 4, passed by Utah voters.

This map is not as bad as Option A, but it is still not as good as Option B. This map puts very developed areas in with very rural areas and dilutes votes like mine. I vote Republican the very large majority of the time. The issues I care about are unique to more urban areas, though, and so rural voters get an outsized say in who my representative is with this map. Stop trying to divide Salt Lake County up.

This map improves on the earlier options but still has significant issues. Davis County is split with jagged borders that divide Kaysville and Layton, which weakens representation for those cities. District 1 is drawn in a sprawling, snaking way that stretches across too many disconnected areas, making it hard to see a clear community of interest.

None of the Legislative maps are as fair as the independent committee's. They all dilute Salt Lake County. They split counties, cities, and neighborhoods with similar interests. They combine urban and rural areas, which have completely different interests. They do not use natural boundaries. They do not represent fair, proportional and competitive maps and therefore do not meet the needs of the people. Salt Lake County represents the largest population and should therefore be represented as one district, not split up and picked apart.

The size varaition between the districts makes me question if this represents the popluation of the state well.

In this one my city is split into two different districts. Why? Why so many splits in all the maps that the legislature are proposing? I would like my home, my work, and the places I visit daily to be in the same district.

This map splits up my home from my work and my school from my family. It divides so many more communities compared to the other maps. Davis County is split up and Salt Lake County is split up in ways that communities are united. Strongly dislike this map.

This map is slightly better than A, B, C, and E. However it still lumps urban and suburban areas, which have many different needs. Splitting the urban areas of the Salt Lake valley in this way weakens urban interests. Don't use the "bias" measure. It is more properly called the "gerrymander success" measure. A 2-2 outcome assures that the members of the minority party have very little chance of representation. Use one of the IRC maps.

Another attempt to dilute Salt Lake County.

Keep Salt Lake County whole.

Again carving up the center of Salt Lake county.

I live in Sugar House and my community would be split multiple times by this map. The concerns of my neighbors 1 block away would be much more similar than that of people in other counties South of the area. Splitting Millcreek into multiple districts doesn't make sense either. I"m so confused by this map.

Please stop gerrymandering, it's so sad. Especially when we've voted against it. It's unfair to us voters not to be represented accurately and within our Salt Lake county.

This map is all over the state with its sprawling boundaries which divide counties and couples cities together that do not have common interests including my county that divides Layton from Kaysville, Fruit Heights, and Farmington, four tightly compact cities geographically.

This map splits up SLC and is not representative of the fair, proportional and competitive maps that voters mandated in proposition 4.

This is possibly the worst of the map choices. It splits four counties, and District 1 is too sprawling--it's crazy that Yost and Bluff would be in the same district.

Poor map, pits urban and rural areas against each other

Please stop trying to draw lines right through Salt Lake City. People who live in the Salt Lake Valley need to be able to represent their needs and priorities, and people in the rural areas need to have representation specific to their needs.

District 1 is spread out all over the state. This district is definitely not compact, sprawling from the far north to the far southeast. The map developed by Escamilla and Owens makes more sense in the way the state is divided.

Interests of southeastern Utah have little in common economy-wise with the rest of District 1, and would not represent my concerns. Cities arbitrarily divided, squelching like communities' voices.

Another attempt to dilute Salt Lake County. It's wrong and will result in another legal battle that tax dollars pay for because our legislature won't agree on fair maps.

Salt lake should not be so divided.

This map splits urban areas and will not represent my neighborhood concerns adequately.

Maps should be drawn by an independent committee. This map is heavily gerrymandered and does not meet the requirements of Prop 4. It does not minimize city or county splits, or preserve communities of interest.

This map (Leg Map D) includes a more compact district in the Salt Lake Valley, but still does not preserve communities of interest in logical ways. District 1 is too stretched out along the eastern border of the state, from the northern border to the southern border; it seems the communities in the north and those in the south would likely have very different issues and priorities.

This somewhat better than the other legislature pushed maps, but it still makes no sense. Urban and rural areas of the state have very different concerns and should not be lumped together. As in the past, the majority party in the legislature is trying very hard to dilute the urban vote by abitrarily dividing up the urban areas. This is a contorted attempt to do just that and is a clear attempt to ensure that a Democrate is never elected to Congress. This blatantly ignors the will of the people when we passed Prop 4.

Still feels like you're carving up Utah's urban corridor.

The proposed districts on this map are not fair to voters. They divide communities of interest and split counties in unusual ways.

This map also seems to unnecessarily split communities. District 4 encompasses residents from Bluffdale, Saratoga Springs, and Cottonwood Heights, and extends into the canyons. I would imagine their community needs may be as far apart in distance as this boundaries of this district.

At first glance, this map seemed less extreme than the others initially proposed by the redistricting committee. However, on closer review, it is the furthest from meeting the spirit and requirements of Proposition 4, and ultimately the will of the people.

While initially I thought that Map D was the least absurd of the 5 submitted but the outside expert for the redistricting committee, upon a deeper dive into the details, I now find Map D the most problematic in terms of lack of compactness, the skewed proportion of Rep vs Dem voters, and the (un)likelihood that more than one party has a chance of winning. I still think the Escamilla/Owens map will serve our voters best.

my city of south jordan is cut up. my preference is that counties be maintained, but if that's not possible, then cities must be, and counties more intact than this one

This District 3 shape is absurd and illogical. District 4 is also. No clear reasoning for these boundaries.

I became involved with passing Prop 4 because I truly believe we are a better state and society when we have representation that supports whole communities, keeps cities whole, and communities of interest together. This map completely cuts Salt Lake City and County in half. We need Salk Lake City to be represented for their specific needs, just as St. George deserves proper representation. Please abide by the Prop 4 specifications. I don't believe this map does this. As I look at the various maps, I believe that the map built by Escamilla/Owens best meets the criteria outlined in Prop 4 that the Citizen's voted for. Thank you!

This map fails to reflect the intent of Proposition 4, the court’s order, and the will of the people. The proposed single partisan symmetry test compounds the problem. Please respect the will of the people and do better. We need maps that strengthen Utah, not divide and weaken our voices.

I think having the north and South border share a district is absolutely crazy! There are so many other weird things, splitting up even school boundaries in our area.

Map Option D is very gerrymandered. It splits 5 counties, cuts up SL County, the districts are not compact, it does not preserve neighborhoods of interest.

I like that Salt Lake City isn't cut in half but why is it separated from other suburbs that are generally considered extended salt lake?

This one still gerrymanders SLC, breaking it apart on purpose. The only one I support is the Escamilla-Owens option.

Still cuts up SLC. The Escamilla-Owens map is the only option that does not combine my SLC community with rural interests.

This map cuts up my SLC community in ways that don't make sense and in arbitrary lines.

Total gerrymandering.

I love Utah and I love my community. I have worked to support my community in community councils, and serving on local boards, it showed me that neighborhoods matter and local representation matters. Having to share a representative with folks clear across the state has meant I have never felt like my voice was heard in congress. Many of us in Utah share that same concern. These maps really matter, they are a chance to keep communities together, to make sure the voices of all Utahns are heard and that our kitchen table issues make it to the halls of congress. This map divides Sugarhouse from itself, a community fundamentally facing the same issues. That's why I'm asking the commission to pass maps that reflect the real Utah and respect Prop 4. If we do this, we have the chance to make sure all of our neighborhoods and local issues are seen and heard.

This map does not create equal districts with adequate representation.

I don't agree with the way that map A creates unfair proportionality. Democrats make up 1/3 of the state and the districts should reflect that.

This map does not create a competitive landscape for politicians making it too easy for elected officials to keep their seats.

The artificial division of Salt Lake County strikes me as obviously inconsistent with the intent of the voter referendum.

This map included badly gerrymandered districts and divides communities. It ignores most of the requirements for proper redistricting and should be rejected outright. The Escamilla Owens map remains the only option that meets the requirements for fair redistricting

Somehow this is the best out of options A-E. The way Salt Lake City is split up shows no regard for the communities and neighborhoods that are being divided.

Another terrible map that dilutes areas with similar interests that ensures that rural areas of the state are going to control all of Utah's politics. Go back to maps created by the independent commission. None of this comply with the goals of Prop 4.

For those of us in Northern Utah, a WORSE map than A,B,C maps. It even manages to dilute the populations of Logan and Ogden by drawing the line all the way to the southern-most reaches of the state. The whole point of a district map is for it to be from a "district"!!

And finally this map. In many ways the least perverse of those proposed by the legislature and yet still unacceptable for the way it meticulously denies Salt Lake City a voice

Of the maps presented, this one is OK, but I still don't like it. At least it keeps urban/suburban folks together and rural folks together. The borders seem arbitrary, though - not really considering city borders.

The issue with this map, and all but map E, is the artificial splitting of the Colorado River counties. The map maker viewed the river and a cultural or economic barrier, rather than the fact that Carbon, Emery, Wayne,San Juan, Kane, Garfield, and Grand counties have a shared interest in Colorado River management, federal land use policies, and the management of major recreation (and economic) aspects of the uses of the federal lands here, In the herrings some of he legislators complained about distances and travel, and the issues of just two bridges across the Co. River. In a state that has most of its populations in a small area, we are going to have big areal districts. Slipping along the CO river furter reduces these rual areas abilities to help shape policy.

This map is one of the stronger options, with better municipal respect, but still undermines fair representation by dividing Salt Lake County unnecessarily.

My interests will rarely if ever be fairly represented if this map is adopted.

This map does not ensure full and fair representation for the individual communities in our state. Map 249, the Escamilla-Owens map, does the best job of keeping communities' interests represented.

This is very choppy and biased.

This is bad!

The Escamilla-Owens map does a better job of dividing the state by community boundaries

This map is not good. It divides counties and communities. This map does NOT serve the best interests of the residents of this state.

Creating updated district boundaries is hard. It is hard when it is embarked upon with honesty and integrity. The previous legislature made redistricting infinitely more difficult on this legislature than it inherently is by destroying trust the first time around. This legislature isn’t helping itself in that regard. This map is not an example of trying to restore or reestablish trust. I strongly oppose map D for many of the reasons already stated in other comments. It unnecessarily splits communities to maintain a strong republican influence in all districts - as if that wasn't going to be the case anyway.

I don't feel like this is good representation for my community - why lump us in with urban and rural?

This map cuts up communities, including mine, in a non-logical and gerrymandered fashion. It does not give urban areas a united voice and true representation. My representative in district 4 could never represent my interests in Canyon Rim while also trying to represent most of western rural Utah. With this map I have neighbors to the north that are literally within a miles of me and are placed into another districts, for no logical reason. The communities all have the same interests and concerns and should be represented collectively. This map splits up communities in odd ways that should instead be grouped together to ensure proper representation of those areas of Utah. It seems to split up neighborhoods to the point that two neighbors could be in completely different districts. Also, the needs and concerns of the rural corners of Utah are going to be different than the more population dense urban centers and both need to be represented.

I don't like how this map appears to arbitrarily divide municipalities. That makes it harder to get people the resources they need.

This map is a bit better than maps A-C, but it still divides like communities, like Herriman from Draper and Kaysville from Layton.

This map does better than A-C in keeping urban and suburban communities, but still splits municipalities and counties excessively, and combines rural and urban areas. I thought this option was marginally acceptable until I saw the Owens/Escamilla map, which manages to meet all the criteria. Do better.

Not an equitable distribution or representation for the peoples of Utah.

This map seems to endorse big districts outside SLC so this same aspect cannot be used against the Escamillia/Owen's map. Keep SLCo together as a unified voice of urban voters.

Why not use the maps already drawn in 2021 by qualified people! Keep neighborhoods together. 2 districts - urban; 2 districts - rural Salt Lake County should be together

This map splits SLC neighborhoods in an unreasonable way. SLC should be able to have congressional representation that fairly represents the views of the people of the city

This map is not in keeping with the law as cities and counties are not kept together, nor are neighborhoods and communities of interest preserved.

This option begins, but then fails, to not unnaturally split every district into an artificial aggregation of rural and urban. It fails in the odd carve-outs and splits in Salt Lake and Utah county. While the districts are more compact, they still do not preserve communities of interest in ways that are natural or intuitive. The best I can say is that this one, of Options A-D, is the least bad. I cannot support Options A-D.

No on this map. It appears to split too many cities and neighborhoods of common interest.

The best map, that most fairly represents Utahns, is the Escamilla-Owens map. Option C divides the neighborhoods of Salt Lake City in confusing ways. It is not fair or balanced, creates confusion among Salt Lake City voters, and doesn't group people with common concerns. By grouping Salt Lake City with parts of the Ogden area and Stansbury Park, the voters of all three areas will not be fairly represented. It makes little sense to split Sugarhouse and Millcreek, while grouping Millcreek with parts of Utah Valley and Sugarhouse with parts of the Ogden area.

This map is not as good as the Escamilla-Owens map or Map E in keeping communities with common interests districted together. I dislike how this map divides areas of the Salt Lake Valley in strange ways that separate neighborhoods and communities. It dilutes all urban voters with large rural areas which have different concerns and deserve different representation.

This map breaks up my community

The fact that Logan and Monticello are both represented in the same district is crazy. No way is this the best option.

This is the least offensive of the Legislative Redistricting Committee's maps. Senator Escamilla and Representative Owens' map is the best.

nope

I dislike this map.

The Escamilla-Owens map is the one that best represents the intent of Proposition 4 by keeping communities together. Given the recent court decisions, we should be using a map created by the independent commission. Short of that, the Escamilla-Owens map is my top choice. Out of options A-E, option E while still gerrymandered, appears to be the least gerrymandered. I cannot support A-D.

I do not support maps A, B, C, or D, which do not follow the intent of Proposition 4, the court's order, or the will of the people.

I do not like this map

This maps looks like it is trying to have better use of urban vs. non-urban areas, but the lines being drawn through Salt Lake County are quite zig-zagged. This option doesn't meet the goals of fair districting such as not splitting urban cities, or counties, and avoiding irregular boundaries.

This map is probably the best of the legislature-created maps, but it has several issues and is still far worse than the Escamilla/Owens map. This split between District 1 and 3 is disgustingly jagged and is taking select pieces out of neighborhoods. I appreciate the two urban districts model, but this is not the best way to do it.

I appreciate the effort that went into this map; however, I am concerned it does not adequately respect communities of interest and appears to prioritize political interests over fair representation, risking fragmentation of neighborhoods and dilution of voters’ voices. It also seems inconsistent with the court’s order and the will of the people expressed through Proposition 4 and prior public input. I strongly prefer the maps recommended by the Better Boundaries Committee, as well as the public-submitted maps and the Escamilla/Owens maps, as these better preserve community integrity, balance Utah’s urban and rural needs, and promote fair, nonpartisan representation consistent with legal requirements and the values of Utahns. Of all the maps submitted by the Legislature, the Escamilla/Owens maps are clearly the best. The Legislature’s stated reasons for excluding public maps based on Proposition 4 appear inconsistent with the intent of Proposition 4 as understood by many Utah voters. This exclusion raises concerns about whether the will of the people is being fully honored. I urge the committee to seriously consider these alternatives rather than maps that fail to uphold the principles of community, fairness, and transparency.

I live in Ogden. Ogden is a an urban area, more like Salt Lake City than other regions of the state. This map puts Ogden not only with the rural areas of the north, but all the rural areas of the east and SE. I can't imagine one congress person being able to represent well all that vast difference.

Still weird. NW Utah + SE Utah?

Same old gerrymandered map, just a new variation on an old theme.

Once again, Salt Lake is being carved up to enable gerrymandering. This map does not honor the intent of Prop 4.

This is no better than the other options. There is not a single good reason to split Salt Lake City into two districts. Salt Lake City and as much of Salt Lake County as possible should be in one district.

Not the worst map, far from actually following Prop 4. Should be rejected.

This map does not follow Utah Code 20A-20-302(5)(a), (d), and (f)(iii). Please follow the law passed by a majority of voters statewide. Salt Lake County deserves to be represented in the US Congress.

Salt Lake County should have its own district. This map is close but not close enough.

District 1 ruins this map. The far corners of the state don't belong in the same district and you wouldn't travel between them without crossing the other districts.

Too much splitting of Salt Lake County again!!

One of the biggest issues with fair boundaries is in connecting communities together. This map is trying to connect Moab and Blanding to Logan, which is frankly absurd. You can't even drive from Blanding to Logan while staying in the same district.

Too large of an area for a representative to cover.

This again splits Salt Lake, into three districts now. It defeats the purpose of having fair boundaries.

Still too much of a SL County split.

Viewing this map I find a lot of inconsistencies. First being that the drastic difference of 2 districts being so large that the people being represented are so different. The northern residents live a very different lifestyle than the southern part they should not be represented in this way. The second is the geographic layout of the state is not taken into drastic consideration with this map. We have mountain range after mountain range in the middle of the districts which would take extremely long for a representative to reach the people in the areas throughout. With limited roads as well especially in the winter can make for connection within the district reasonably hard.

This map, like so many others, splits the urban Salt Lake County and tacks it onto rural counties and towns that have NOTHING in common with the urban heart of the state. Meandering borders that cross through cities and counties show that the real purpose of this map is to dilute urban votes.

The fact that the republican members of the redistricting commission have started every meeting with complaints about how this process is unfair is really telling. They seem to have absolutely no sense of nuance with respect to the reason for the multiple cascading requirements of Proposition 4. Every map they have proposed is exactly down to a person equal for each of the 4 congressional districts, at the expense of some households, streets, communities, or cities. The 6th map has the largest deviation of only 37 voters, keeping communities together. If the only requirement was the number of voters, the republican commissioners would win a medal. Since there are other factors that should be weighed, they have failed miserably by hyper focusing and missed the forest for the trees.

Map D seems very odd as this would divide Salt Lake County in 2. I actually prefer Map E as it most closely attains a complete Salt Lake County unification.

I prefer E over this map, but this isn't as bad as options A, B, and C. I would still prefer that the Legislature use the maps proposed by the Independent Redistricting Committee.

Why in the world would you put the two farthest points of the state in the same district?

What in the world is this split?

It makes sense to put Northern Utah County and southern Salt Lake County together as much of the workforce commutes back and forth with silicon slopes. But it is pretty difficult to understand how this map could have butchered the dividing lines to badly. This map should not exist. Use the original UIRC maps.

The problem with this map is that it feels very much like the committee is using partisan data. How else could you so perfectly carve up SLC along party lines? Anyone who's spent any significant amount of time here knows very well the partisan differences between Herriman and West Valley City, or American Fork and Midvale. It seems very much like a deliberate attempt to gerrymander.

With the new Alpine school district split Pleasant Grove and Lindon are in the same school district. They shouldn't be split in the congressional district.

May be the least odious of the four partisan maps but still splits the Salt Lake metro area and serves to keep current congresspeople in power. The partisan legislature is ignoring its moral responsibility disregarding the work of the non-partisan commission from which they illegally usurped power.

Splitting Salt Lake is gerrymandering!!

Clearly splitting Salt Lake yet again for more gerrymandering. None of these maps abide by Prop 4.

This still attempts to SPLIT communities of common interest. Follow Prop 4. It's slightly better than A-C, but still plays political games with our representation. Draw fair maps.

Dissecting Salt Lake County like a high school science project is never going to result in a fair map. I urge our officials and leaders to reject any map in which Salt Lake County is sliced in half!

Please use the independently designed maps that were proposed in Prop 4, as those maps meet the requirements of the proposition.

While this is the least absurd of the 5 options, it is still far worse than the UIRC options. Just use the maps that are what we voted for, and have been thoughtfully created and considered!

This map has failed to meet guidelines of prop 4 and it continues to gerrymander SLC. It is better than options A, B, C though

again, better than A, B and C but still bad

You have gerrymandered Salt Lake and Millcreek and Cottonwood so that you can screw Democrats, and it is why I left the Republican Party. You are dishonest and covering for fascists.

I like this one more than options A-C but I do not like the shape of district 1. I think having the top and the bottom of the state in the same district is unnecessary.

This map doesn't preserve communities of interest, and has snaking shapes that split communities. Salt lake city is split. Slat lake county is split, along with other counties. Compact districts are able to be drawn without the communites being split like this.

I disagree that so much of Utah County should share a district with a majority of southern Utah. In order to follow the population rule from Prop 4, District 4 should extend to a majority of Utah County and District 1 & 2 should be adjusted to pickup the loss in population. In full transparency, Utahns voted for an independent committee so the spirit and original letter of the law should require one of the maps from the UIRC, preferably UIRC Purple. Please as a lifelong Utahn your constituents have the right granted to us by the Utah Constitution to change our government. No more attempts to subvert our voice, select UIRC Purple.

splitting of a community of interest by splitting the two Jordans

Box Elder should not be in with San Juan

unnecessary split of Layton City

This is a split of Salt Lake City itself

small WVC split

unnecessary split of taylorsville

This map would have me living in District 4, but working and shopping and doing my recreation and hobbies often in District 3. This is a very odd way to split up Salt Lake County and the Salt Lake valley. The Salt Lake Valley should be kept together for a representative as best as possible.

Use the maps that were originally drawn by the fair redistricting commission. Splitting up Salt Lake City and County makes all these maps gerrymandered.

This map is more aligned with urban and rural differences; however, Salt Lake County is intentionally split to favor the legislature's ruling majority and not represent constituents' voting preferences, which is gerrymandering.

After listening to Mr. Trende speak I had high hopes for a fair map but one of the things he kept emphasizing was keeping cities together and the use of boundary lines, such as rivers, roads etc. It seems clear to me that I-15 is a major boundary and yet every map put forth has over lap on that boundary. All the maps seem to overlap and split cities, counties and overlap the existing boundary of I-15. It was extremely distressing to me to hear the chair cut of Mr. Owens when he ask for some clarification of how certain data was used. I soon guess and verified that Mr. Owens was a Democrat and the chair was shutting him down due because of that. By the way I am a Republican but I don't feel that the best interests of my community are served by the boundaries in any of the five Republican maps. I'm not sure I'm a fan of the Democrat map either but it appears to be more representative of the needs of my area.

I dislike this map. It splits SLCounty in a way (north to south) that fails to keep communities of interest together. It also still attempts to have all districts be both urban and rural. This is inconsistent with the Framers' intent for Congress. The Federalist Papers describe the framers’ intention that each congressperson understand and represent not state-wide, but local interests. Federalist No. 52 and 56.

Why would a judge accept any gerrymandered map produced by the Republican legislature. They have lost all credibility for fairness and demonstrated they are not trustworthy. I think a far more fair approach would be allow the entire salt lake valley area to be one district, rather than carving it up to dilute its liberal influence.

Why would a judge accept any gerrymandered map produced by the Republican legislature. They have lost all credibility for fairness and demonstrated they are not trustworthy. I think a far more fair approach would be allow the entire salt lake valley area to be one district, rather than carving it up to dilute its liberal influence.

Best one of these options. However, not great. Why aren't we going with one from the redistricting pannel? All of these obviously are marginalizing voters.

This ziggy split of SLC county is bad idea, against rules of prop 4.

IT makes no sense to use the Colorado River as a boundary. residents on opposite sides have same concerns.

Map D is better than Maps A-C. However, it still splits urban areas like Salt Lake, Park City, and Milcreek into different districts which dilutes both urban and rural voices. Independent redistricting maps were drawn as part of Proposition 4. They are what we voted for. Why are the people who allegedly represent us in the state government working so hard to overturn our vote? I don't trust these maps and would like none of them to be utilized in the redistricting process.

I agree with the other negative comments. Pick a map from the independent districting panel instead. This map is a plan gerrymander, yet again, by pretending to honor the voters and hiding behind an overly complex mathematical formula. say no to gerrymander. The Judge did great work and hopefully she sees what is being done in bad faith.

A couple of issues with this map: 1. Why are we splitting up Salt Lake county so much 2. Why are we splitting Utah County/Wasatch Front up so much?

Option D seems to be the best option out of all options presented here, but it still isn't sufficient. Salt Lake County looks to be intentionally split up to dilute representation. These maps should be made by independent, neutral parties that don't have anything to gain by gerrymandering and therefore disenfranchising voters.

option E is the best, stop splitting up urban salt lake. residents have different interests than rural areas and those interests need to be represented (especially for minorities)

I would lump Stansbury Park in with Tooele instead.

More of the same political gerrymandering. The gall of this legislature to avoid the will of the people!

This splits Erda and Grantsville (and Midway) in addition to the 3 other municipal splits the LRC claimed (Layton, Taylorsville, Eagle Mountain). That means there's at least 6 splits, not 3.

The Wasatch Front should not be sharing representation with rural Utah. A donut map for one huge district encompassing 3 along the Wasatch Front is the ideal solution.

At first glance, this map appears to unduly carve up counties arbitrarily. It also appears to separate counties from their regional neighborhoods. Overall, this does not appear to meet the guidelines as outlined in Prop 4 and should be rejected.

Between D and E, I far prefer E. This map's compactness is poor for district 2 and very poor for district 1. There is no reason for Millcreek to not be paired with sugarhouse. A, B, and C are not viable without changes because they break up Salt Lake County in a way that clearly benefits one party which is against Prop 4.

Why are you reinventing the wheel with these obviously partisan maps? Didn’t the independent commission spend huge efforts to create some already that didn’t create anger, resentment and disgust with the almighty, authoritarian Utah Legislature!? These all get an F in my mind.

Still corrupt

This just another partisan gerrymandered hack job on Salt Lake. Clearly the majority party members on the IC are utterly non-serious about creating fair maps. They need judicial supervision and cannot be trusted. Hard pass on this dumpster fire.

Cities and counties are split in nonsensical ways. Don't give advantages to Republicans by diluting Democrat votes. Use the maps by the independent redistricting committee.

While this appears to be one of the better maps, I am still concerned that there has been a choice to try to split up Davis County. Why? As a resident of Bountiful and former resident of WVC, I am surprised to see the two cities in the same district. We have quite different needs. We would be better represented by someone who served Bountiful and the northern Davis area as well. This map seems manipulative.

So far every map I've look at, including this one, splits Salt Lake and surround neighborhoods in truly baffling ways. This one is no exception. This map does not keep cities whole, keep counties whole, have compact districts, have contiguous districts, or preserve neighborhoods and communities of interest.

The five proposed maps clearly fail to meet the standards established by Proposition 4 and the Independent Redistricting Commission Act. Utah voters demanded transparency, fairness, and genuine public input when we passed Prop 4, and yet these maps disregard those requirements. The courts have already shown a willingness to hold the legislature accountable, and it is only a matter of time before these plans are overturned. Instead of wasting more taxpayer dollars defending indefensible maps, I urge you to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law: honor community boundaries, avoid partisan gerrymandering, and incorporate the independent commission’s recommendations. Utahns are watching. If you continue to ignore your constituents and the reforms they enacted, you risk not only judicial rejection but also electoral consequences. Do your job, respect the law, and give Utah the fair maps we voted for.

As pointed out in the 9/22/2025 meeting a few cities have boundaries located in two counties. The number of voters affected by that is so minute it will not change the outcome of a district. Salt Lake County is the only county that has a population large enough to be divided. The small number of households does not justify carving SLC up into four fragments. There is is a reason why we need to use the maps drawn by the UIRC. All five options we have to choose from in this exercise do not come close to meeting Proposition 4 standards. Looking at the current maps I feel like I'm in the Wizard of Oz and being told to not look at the people behind the curtain. We need to keep the Wizards with their imagined perils in check. Just use the redistricting maps given to the legislature by the independent commission in 2021 they were good well thought out maps. These five offerings aren't fit for butt wipe.

SLC leans left and every district on this proposed map leans right. This map is still gerrymandered and intended to make Democrats work harder than they should have to for representation in a Democratic region, thereby giving Republicans an unfair advantage.

As others have mentioned, this map does not, in good faith, follow the Prop 4 guidelines. Please follow the will of your constituents and use one of the maps drawn up by the independent commission. Everyone should be able to be represented fairly in Utah.

During Monday's hearing, the chair said that data about the number of county and municipality splits would be available for the public to analyze. This information is critical to help us really understand how cohesive or incohesive the maps are. While this is the least egregious map, it is still problematic. The maps should include one smaller district that serves the needs of the urban and suburban hubs of Northern Salt Lake County. This will also ensure that two of the most minority-majority cities (Salt Lake and West Valley) have adequate representation.

District 1 is pretty crazy, not compact for sure, but the rest gets closer. Could use one of the independent commission maps that do a better job of cleaning up this map.

This map does not follow all of the rules laid out in Proposition 4. There are multiple cities and counties that have been divided when they should be kept together and the districts are sprawling. Dr Trende used Political Data to draw these maps, which goes against the Requirements of Prop 4.

Map Option D: This map violates the law by not keeping counties whole, not keeping cities whole, they are not compact districts, it does not preserve neighborhoods of interest, they are not contiguous districts, and they are gerrymandered. We need to have a non-partisan independent group create new maps, not an out of state “expert”.

Putting Box Elder County with San Juan makes no sense at all. And splitting my neighborhood in Taylorsville in two, and then grouping one of them with Lehi, also makes no sense. It also violates rules 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Proposition 4, which is law.

This map has potential, but it still unnecessarily divides communities and counties. Move all of Toole County to District 1. Move all of Davis County to District 3. Move San Juan County and Grand County to District 2. Move Herriman, South Jordan, and Riverton to District 4.

Jackson Lewis and Stuart Hepworth make valid, detailed comments. Reference the map proposal 2025SHNOSPLIT6 to see how to represent all Utahns with a map that addresses the Prop 4 criteria better than the maps proposed by the Legislative Redistricting Committee.

The Independent Redistricting Committee presented you with much better maps than what has currently been submitted. Every map breaks apart Salt Lake County while it is so blaringly obvious that you try and keep Utah County together as much as possible. It is time to realize that there are people in this state who want AND deserve representation by someone with the same values.

This map is only slightly better than the rest, but it is evident that the Legislature is still trying to eat their cake and have it, too. And still splitting up Salt Lake Counties urban neighborhoods to dilute our votes from counting on any issues. Badly done. Where are the original maps drawn up by the INDEPENDENT and NEUTRAL committee?

This map is splitting Salt Lake county again, which is again an obvious attempt to dilute the voices of this region and strip them of fair and accurate representation. There is no reason that Salt Lake county should be split down the middle, its understandable that some of the county will need to be allocated to another district in order to meet population requirements for each district but to do so in this way denies the region accurate and fair representation.

Cache Valley and San Juan County should not be in the same district. I live in Cache Valley and have worked in the Navajo Nation (and other parts of Eastern Utah that are included in this map). There are not as many shared cultural and political interests between these areas as there are between Cache Valley and Ogden or Eastern Utah and Southwestern Utah. Additionally, getting from one part of the district (such as Cache Valley) to another (let's, say, Blanding) would require leaving the district which is a big no-no. There might be dirt roads that you could use on a seasonal basis, and some off-roading, but that's about it.

If SL County population is too large to fit in one district why is it split in half stretching to either state border? A fair split would fit as much of SLC in a single district as possible, and some of the county could be combined with another district

As a constituent living in Rose Park - none of these maps reflect what the voters passed as law in prop 4. Communities should be kept together and given equal representation by having their own districts and their own rep.

All of these maps are still the majority's way of gerrymandering the state to their advantage and totally disregards the intent of Proposition 4 which we citizens passed by a clear majority. These maps should all be disregarded by the court and one of the proposed maps by the independent redistricting committee (UIRC) should be approved.

Again, splitting communities. Kearns and Taylorsville, are some of the first thoughts of what one would call the "West Valley." Splitting communities for partisan gain.

I hate all of these unfair gerrymandered maps! Stop splitting up Salt Lake communities and let us have a voice! Throw all of these out and use one of the maps from the Independent Committee!!!!

As a voter in Utah County, I support Proposition 4 and expect our representatives to uphold what we voted for, including using the maps drawn by the Utah Independent Commission UIRC.

This is not a good map. The state legislature must follow the Prop 4 guidelines, and judicial instructions, to consider multiple fairness tests, not just the partisan symmetry test, to ensure each voter is heard, regardless of their politics. We want democracy, not gerrymandered autocracy.

How about this? The part of the state that is north is one district. The part of the state that is south is one district. Salt Lake County is one district. Utah County is one district. That is the fairest option, keeping folks with similar interests together. Use maps drawn up by the independent commission! The committee the Legislature appointed is overwhelmingly Republican. Let the people of this state - who are not Republican - have a voice. The Legislative majority in this state needs to back off of its unrelenting efforts to retain power despite the changing demographics of this state.

In this map, district 1 spans the Entire State of Utah. Given the requirement of compactness and a regular shape, this district would not meet the standards. I would challenge the map maker to drive from Lewiston to Blanding without using I-15. Northern Utah vs Southern Utah varies in culture, economy, environment and geography. Northern Utah has an agricultural base and needs efficient water management versus Southern Utah faces severe water scarcity and drought. Even the seasons vary with Northern Utah having snowy winters and Southern Utah having a desert climate. Northern Utah has a growth management and housing issue versus Southern Utah has a need for jobs, health access and infrastructure.

This map continues to split a cohesive community into two separate districts. Instead of keeping the metro together as a community of interest, each half is combined with large populations from distant or very different areas. This weakens the ability of residents to have unified representation, and dilutes their voice.

This map willfully disregards the legal requirement that counties not be split up unless absolutely necessary (Salt Lake, Utah, and Wasatch counties are all divided up). It's clearly meant to "appear" compact, while actually dividing communities of interest. Sugarhouse has more common interests with Millcreek than it does with Farmington

All of the current options for the four Congressional Districts are in violation of the Statewide Initiative -- Proposition 4, Nov. 6, 2018. There are good and valid maps from the original Utah Independent Commission UIRC, use them. Stop defying the Utah Constitution and the State laws you have sworn to uphold when you were elected. Stop carving up Salt Lake County, we deserve a fair opportunity to choose our elected Federal Representative(s).

While these maps are better than the absurd 4-way split from the last go-around, it's clear that the intent is still to dilute Democrats and maintain total Republican representation. There is no compelling reason for having districts which contain both rural and urban areas. Why not have 1 Salt Lake County district of 817,000 people and then divide from there. You can have the next district comprised of S. Salt Lake County and most of Utah County. And then have a northern district and southern districts which are comprised of suburban and rural. You would end up with the following: 1 moderate Democrat district, 2 moderate Republican districts, and 1 further right Republican district. Is this too inconceivable? We live in a constitutional republic based on a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. This would more accurately represent the state than the blatant gerrymander we have now and the less blatant gerrymander proposed in the new maps.

Dividing communities of interest does not follow the statements of prop 4, voted on by We the People. These maps make it clear that an independent commission is needed as the legislature's offerings disregard Prop 4, and therefore the court order. I hope this doesn't take another 8 years to rectify.

The map is less offensive that A,B, and C, but still pretty bad. Salt Lake County is still being split to incorporate areas of Davis and Utah Counties when more of it could be encompassed in a single district. Also, the legislature's ability to create a 5 maps so quickly reveals the lies they told the court about needing more time. The independent commission already had a very lengthy and thorough process. There's no principled reason you couldn't you those.

Please do not split Wasatch County

Balancing urban and rural areas should not be the legislatures priority. The focus should be preserving communities with shared needs, interests, and communities. None of your maps prioritize this as you divide up the urban areas in every map.

I do not like the idea of splitting Tooele County into parts of two different districts. We should stand united as a county.

Why do we continually have to endure blatant abuses of power and these transparent ploys to hold on to political power that was unjustly gained in the first place? The only thing that should be happening here is for the legislature to respect the while of the people and allow maps drawn up by the INDEPENDENT board to take affect. Anything less than that is a continued gross abuse of their power and a dereliction of their duties to follow the will of the people they represent!

Really? . Splits too many counties and creates 2 very small districts. Versions A, B and C are worth keeping. Salt Lake County numerically needs to be split. The other counties do not have to be split at all. See my updated Hat and 3 stripes submittal based on what I submitted in 2011.

I live in Millcreek and each one of these proposed maps cares up my community, putting nearby friends, family and businesses in other districts and lumping me in the same district with remote parts of the state. Urban and rural districts both deserve Congressional representation that can focus on their needs. The demand for a rural/urban mix in each district is a red herring for political gerrymandering. I prefer the independent committee's maps.

I really don't like tremonton to blanding rural wrap. Districts 3 and 4 are interesting, though.

Bluffdale shares significant community interest with Riverton and Herriman, this carve out does not make much sense. I-15 seems like a natural boundary and Bluffdale should be with the communities on the west side of I-15

In the congressional meeting it became apparent that this maps splitting of the central city is clearly in violation of municipality, county, and prop 4's guidelines.

This is better than the other three maps previous. But again, why is the Salt Lake area not being kept together? Why is it constantly being divided up? This map is still unfair and does not actually put the groups of voters together. Millcreek, Cottonwood Heights, Sandy, Murray should all be kept with South Salt Lake, Sugar House, Salt Lake, and West Valley. Stop dividing our votes!!!!

Politically speaking, this is probably the most fair map. However the boundaries still violate the spirit of fair districting. I live in the Avenues, and I could not easily travel to this corner of the district without passing through another district.

The way this map is drawn, families who send their kids to Davis High School will be split between two different districts. Layton Parkway is the boundary for the school, and as we can see on this map district 3 ends prior to Layton Parkway and features a variety of odd shapes and out-juts. This split also doesn't honor city boundaries (one of the guidelines of fair redistricting!) Very odd choice to split Davis County at all -- I would say the entire county has very similar values and political goals.

This map seems somewhat reasonable until you zoom in and see how odd the division of Salt Lake County is. I echo others who have called for using a map drawn up by the independent commission. Dividing the east and west sides of salt lake county seems like an intention effort to split up communities who have similar political views.

I live here and feel like I would be best represented by a district that also includes SLC.

Salt Lake County is too populous to be its own district - fine. But stop carving it up and putting it in districts with other counties. There should be at least one solely-Salt-Lake-County district.

Use the Independent Redistricting Commission maps - so many groups are split or lumped together and make no sense. Why Layton and Kaysville separated? Why combine southern Utah with Utah county?

Please use the UIRC maps. This is what Proposition 4 intended.

And yet again, this map unnecessarily splits up common communities of interest and common neighborhoods. Along with splitting up SL County. We need to use the fair maps that were already drawn in 2021 by the independent redistricting committee that voters voted for.

This might be the fairest of the the maps in question but it continues with the many of the same problems of our current map. As a resident of Utah County, I resent not seeing a single map that treats the county as a single community. At the very least, Utah Valley, where the wellbeing of the valley is shared by all its resedents, should not be divided up (one map goes as far as to split Provo and Orem). The same issue can be said of many other communities along the Wasatch Front. It would be well to revisit the non-partisan maps drawn several years back.

Areas like Saratoga Springs have far more in common with Herriman. lumping the SE corner of SL County with Utah county is not in keeping with the language, goals, or intent of Utah's redistricting law.

Layton and Kaysville being separated? Oh that's a good one. Why not start with keeping counties and regions together as much as possible, rather than just splitting them to split them? Just use the Independent Commission Maps, as the people originally told you to do.

This is an island with no access to the rest of the district by reasonable means.

This map splits up West Jordan, Taylorsville, West Valley City, Kaysville and Layton with some precincts in Wasatch county separated from the rest of the county. It also splits Tooele, Salt Lake, Utah, Davis and Wasatch counties. D1 is not compact and sprawls, and D3 is not contiguous (road travel). Not a great map

If we are to do a configuration of two competitive seats around SLCO and Davis, consider this iteration. file attached

Option D is bad. Why split Davis County up and SLC County up? Move Davis County all into District 1. Combine SLC County into the same district. COMMUNITY of INTEREST not population levels.

This map is just as gerrymandered as the current map and unacceptable. Please use the Independent Redistricting Committee maps.

Please consider this alternative map (proposal 3) that much more fairly and accurately represents the communities that live in Utah. file attached

Please consider this alternative map (proposal 2) that much more fairly and accurately represents the communities that live in Utah. file attached

Please consider this alternative map (proposal 1) that much more fairly and accurately represents the communities that live in Utah. file attached

If this District 1, which stretches from Utah's southeast corner all the way up to its northwest corner, is somehow acceptable to the Legislature, then there is no plausible reason why a district encompassing all of rural Utah wouldn't also be acceptable.

Although Map D is better than A, B, and C, it still gerrymandered. Use the Independent Redistricting Committee maps. It's what the people of Utah want, it is fair and avoids breaking up communities, and the work has already been done.

This is dividing Salt Lake County in a way I just don't get. Use the Fair districting maps.

There is no reason for this to just divide up a random street into another district. whole map splitting up the slc valley is a terrible gerrymandering attempt

Why is Murray always divided from SLC but Riverton can manage to twisted around to be in the same district on multiple map proposals?

The UIRC maps did a better job avoiding arbitrarily diluting the urban/suburban communities of interest closer to Salt Lake into the rural/suburban communities of interest of Box Elder, Tooele, Cache, Weber, and Morgan counties. Please stick with the UIRC maps.

Too much focus splitting Salt Lake Valley. The independent maps are a better option.

Salt Lake City and its closest suburbs should be grouped into 1 congressional district, not split for partisan reasons. Use the better boundaries maps there much fairer and meet all the requirements which this one does not

Use the existing fair maps, stop trying to get the most gerrymander you can out of this state.

The haphazard border between districts 3 and 4 clearly divides communities of interest. Please use one of the existing UIRC maps.

Needless splitting of the county in ways that do not follow natural boundaries, split communities of interest, split cities, and are irregularly shaped. This maps flies in the face of the law.

A district that touches the northernmost and southernmost points of the state is hardly in keeping with the judge's order to keep communities intact.

Layton and Kaysville should be kept together

Why the desire to keep Layton cut off from Kaysville?

Eagle Mountain the city is not large enough in population to warrant a split

Splitting Grand and San Juan counties from the rest of southern utah divides a community of shared interest

Tooele County is not large enough in population to warrant a split

Wasatch is not large enough to warrant a split

Davis is not large enough to warrant a split

way unnecessarily ugly

Salt Lake City itself and its inner suburbs are big enough to make it so that SLC should not be in a commuter district with Tooele and Davis counties

Did you even consider racial demographics and city boundaries when drawing these maps? Splitting West Jordan from South Jordan to add WJ to WVC and Taylorsville while cutting out Murray and Midvale dilutes Utah's Hispanic communities federal representation. Also the Jordans should be kept together

Please just use the maps from the UIRC, the work is already done and it's a lot fairer than this map. This map looks a bit fairer than the first three, but looking closer it's still unnaturally dividing Utah and Salt Lake counties along partisan lines. Why does district 3 have a literal line of 3 houses to then grab a chunk of what would be district 4? There's also a lot of other weirdness with district 3 that makes it seem very partisan.

Splitting Riverton and Bluffdale cuts an important community of interest

Splitting West and South Jordan splits an important community of interest

Millcreek and Eagle Mountain have no shared political, economic, or demographic connections and their lumping makes no sense

nonsensical county split this precinct has about 350 people in it, why is it included in SLCO seat

Also it goes without saying but Box Elder and San Juan being in the same district is definitely not compact or good road connections.

Fairly sure there's no road connection between Uintah and Grand counties.

No road contiguity between the northern and southern parts of Salt Lake County in D3.

No road contiguity between this bit of unincorporated Davis and the rest of D3.