Edit for my previous comment: Map EO (Escamilla/Owens) offers the strongest *NON* partisan commitment to fair representation while fully adhering to Proposition 4. It closely reflects the design proposed by the Independent Redistricting Committee—the public’s chosen framework for equitable mapping.

Map EO (Escamilla/Owens) offers the strongest partisan commitment to fair representation while fully adhering to Proposition 4. It closely reflects the design proposed by the Independent Redistricting Committee—the public’s chosen framework for equitable mapping.

This map does a good job of giving rural and urban areas representation. Since SLC is too big for one district, the boundries here look fairer than most maps.

Better than the current map.

This map seems to represent rural and urban areas equally. It does not split up urban centers and combine them with rural areas as map C does. I do not think it is wise to have someone from a city representing ranchers, nor to have a rancher representing a city.

This map seems to most closely resemble the will of the voters when prop 4 was put on the ballot and the super majority completed overturned the will of their constituents.

I would like Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County to stay together in District 2.

This map seems like the most reasonable and fair. It gives adequate representation to both the urban and rural parts of the state and shows no sign of gerrymandering.

I want Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County not be divided. I want them to stay in District 2 together.

I do not want Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County divided on the map. They should be together in District 2.

This map keeps urban voters together and rural voters together, as much as is possible. It is a fair representation of Utah's population.

I, Linda Haymond, am commenting on the proposed re-districting maps. I am also writing on behalf of my husband, a registered voter and disabled veteran. Because of his brain injury, he is no longer able to write. We favor #249, The Escamilla map because it keeps related communities together better than the other maps. We have felt that our vote does not count and can see the reason why many of our neighbors have just given up on voting altogether. Today, Oct. 05, is the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Navy. My husband, Scott R. Nelson, served his country in the Navy and committed himself not only to his country during his time of service, but to life-long service to his country. When we write to our representative, we either get no reply or canned answers that do not at all address the issue about which we have written. We feel that we, as constituents, are not the concern of our representative. We moved a few blocks south of our previous home and found ourselves in a different congressional district altogether. We share many of the concerns of our neighbors and feel like the current map is disrespectful of our community. It is little wonder that many of our neighbors have simply given up on civic involvement and voting. We strongly believe in the promise of democratic involvement and urge the committee to adopt the Escamilla-Owens map. Thank you for YOUR service as elected representatives.

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. It is hard to take the notion seriously, for example, that 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, specifically Salt Lake.

I support the Maintaining Partisan Symmetry map. It reflects the core principles of Proposition 4 by promoting fair, non-partisan representation and preserving communities of interest. Unlike other proposals that split counties and pair urban areas like Sandy with distant rural regions, this map respects geographic coherence and voter equity. It also ensures that partisan outcomes more closely reflect the actual preferences of Utah voters, which is essential for maintaining public trust in the redistricting process. This map is a responsible, legally sound option that deserves serious consideration.

This map (not C) is better than our current maps.

My previous comment was for Map C. Map C is the least fair to Independents and Democrats.

I mistook this map for Map C as presented by the Salt Lake Tribune. This map is not the map that splits Salt Lake County into 4 sections, which I appreciate.

This map is a far better alternative to Map C that is blatantly gerrymandering. This map keeps Salt Lake County together the best, which makes the most sense.

This map follows good legislative boundaries practices better than the other maps. I think this map brings the fairest representation for Utah.

This map looks normal (i.e. not a bunch of odd shapes). It keeps Salt Lake County mostly intact, as it should be.

This map follows the goals of the Better Boundaries Ballot Initiative better than the other maps and works to keep groups with a common interest together. It also keeps geographic and municipal communities together. With 90% of Utahns living in urban areas, it makes sense to have two majority-urban districts and two districts that have a mix or urban and rural populations. This will best represent needs and concerns.

Ensures rural areas will have representation at the national level. More likely that urban areas will be represented at the national level.

I would like to be kept in district with others in Salt Lake county. I feel like communities are better served and represented this way. This map also represents what the voters of Utah asked for in proposition 4. I'm looking and hoping for fairness when it comes to redistricting maps. Putting us with residents of rural Utah doesn't serve the best interest of the people.

Based on my observation of the provided map, it seems that the current district boundaries have been thoughtfully designed to facilitate the grouping of communities that share common interests and characteristics, which could potentially enhance representation and responsiveness to local needs.

It's better than the current map we have.

As a West Jordan resident, I appreciate that this map keeps my community together to ensure that our voices are not diluted across multiple districts.

Map C is the best option to give a balanced representation. Map C indicates that our representatives will cover both city and rural areas, ensuring balanced representation.

I prefer this map to the others. This one appears to split SL county the least more in alignment with the requirements.

This map does a good job of keeping similar communities together.

This map goes a long way toward rectifying the gerrymandering of the 2010 and 2020 redistricting maps. It keeps a large portion of Salt Lake County together, and while not perfect, it generally goes a long way towards meeting the goals of Proposition 4 and allow significant representation of the residents in the state who live in Salt Lake County, the largest county in the state.

This map shows some effort at keeping communities together and giving voices to the needs of the different communities in Utah.

This map seems to keep the community of Salt Lake City mostly whole and fairly represented, unlike the current districts being replaced. There is a fair shot for the community of Salt Lake City to have representation for our community needs. This seems to meet the goals of prop 4.

I believe this meets the requirements of prop 4

One of the fairer maps

I appreciate this map approach much better in grouping communities and also grouping issues that may be better served by a focused Representative. I think it will alleviate some of the urban/rural challenges faced currently.

This map keeps existing communities together and creates fair districts for all parts of Utah.

This map looks to be the least gerrymandered. Divisions are not "pinwheeled" or randomly split to break up the Wasatch Front unfairly like previous maps. I approve of this map.

You know, if we end up with a map that's not a wagon wheel, then that will be progress, at least. This is more fair than some of the other maps.

There is at least some effort at community coherence here.

Makes geographic sense, runs along county lines as much as possible, reasonable distribution of the population, and good urban/rural representation. It's greatest weakness is combining Davis and Weber counties (Wasatch Front urban) with Box Elder, Cache, Rich, etc. which are fairly unique. Overall, this is a solid, rational, reasonable map.

This is a good map from my point of view in the Northern district. Populations among all four are pretty equal and it is more fair/honest than other proposed maps.

This seems to do a good job of being nonpartisan and allowing all Utahns a voice in our government.

Not a perfect solution, but it's the best among the available options. It effectively maintains a separation between rural and urban populations, which is important. The whole purpose of having distinct districts is to ensure that communities with different needs, priorities, and ways of life are represented fairly. Blending drastically different populations into the same district can dilute representation and lead to policies that don't serve either group well. This approach, while not ideal, respects those differences and tries to preserve the integrity of each community's voice.

Keeps similar communities together, meets Prop 4 requirements.

Keeps similar communities together, meets Prop 4 requirements.

This map best aligns with Proposition 4 because it creates compact, contiguous districts while keeping more municipalities and communities of interest together. It minimizes unnecessary splits of Salt Lake County compared to the other proposed maps, which better reflects the requirements voters approved in Prop 4.

This map seems to do a good job of following the requirements of Proposition 4. It keeps similar communities together and doesn't unnecessarily split neighborhoods. This map helps maintain compact districts with representation.

I appreciate that this keeps rural voices with rural voices, so rural communities get a real voice at the legislature

It's unfortunate it has taken this long to finally have our vote implemented but glad we are finally here. I feel this map is nearly there at how Utah is represented given the political climate. I feel Draper split at the mountain could belong in District 2 with the other half split in Utah county which is similar to how our tax code works out as a Draper Utah county resident. We are more akin to the politics, school districts, and voting on the Utah county side given where we live. That is to say, I feel like I'm voting more in line with Utah county than I ever would be with Salt Lake county. I'd consider West Valley more aligned with Salt Lake city as well, so this is seems like a decent map with how the representation works out. We shouldn't feel bad that Democrats get more representation here. We are all neighbors and should uphold fair elections and ensure our vote is counted.

This map is mostly reasonable, certainly better than Map C.

I like that this map keeps as many urban Salt Lake City folks together as possible. They have similar transportation needs, lifestyles, socio-economic backgrounds, jobs, and areas of interest. Comments that this is rigged to favor Democrats ignore that it splits Park City from SLC which a partisan map wouldn't do.

This is a reasonable attempt to maintain compact districts and to keep communities with similar interests together.

This map does the best job of keeping SLC together and allowing rural districts to be represented together. In a state as big and sparsely populated as Utah, there are going to be some big districts that people may not feel keep community together. In my opinion, the biggest community and economic driver of the state (SLC) should be as compact a district as possible and I feel this map accomplishes that. No more diluting urban areas with faraway rural voices like our current maps or options A-C! This is unfair and bad for both rural and urban voters.

This is a good map because it keeps most of the urban areas seperate from the rural areas and it only splits up 2 counties.

I like this map as it seems to be the best way to split salt lake county at this current time. It keeps urban with more urban themed and rural represented with rural. People who have more similar needs than not are grouped overall.

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. That's why I'm asking the commission to pass maps like this one that keep communities together 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.

I feel that all the cities (South Jordan, Sandy, Draper, Riverton and Herriman)that are in Salt Lake County should be included in District 2. Consider Adding Alta and Brighton to District 3 or 4. Also add Magna to District 4

This map is fair in that it allows for Salt Lake City to be its own distinct voice rather than being grouped with rural voices that it shares little in common with

I like that this map keeps Salt Lake County whole instead of breaking it up.

I like this map because it keeps the urban folks together and the folks outside the city together, which fixes the problem with the maps we have right now where I live in Millcreek and I'm voting with folks clear up in Brigham City and we have conflicting needs.

This is the ONLY map that makes even a little sense. It's keeps most of Salt Lake County intact. It's time for the voiceless to be heard.

This is the only map that make sense. It keeps urban with urban and rural with rural. It groups constituents with similar needs together so they can have a representative adequately represent the viewpoints of the entire district. This will hopefully be the most accurate reflection of the demographics of Utah.

I appreciate that this map keeps communities together as much as possible so congressmen can focus on the needs of their individual districts.

I like keeping Salt Lake County together. This map is good, but I would prefer my area of Sandy to be with more liberal leaning Salt Lake.

I like the idea of keeping Salt Lake County in one district, as much as it is possible. Sure this map divides the county into TWO districts, north (2) and south (3), not 3 or 4 separate districts. Population density in Salt Lake County make it impossible to create districts that do not divide neighborhoods and communities, but to have 4 congressional districts in one county dilutes representation necessary to satisfy a majority of constituents. Afterall, someone who lives in Salt Lake City has legislative needs than someone 250 miles away in Washington county. Maybe for once in my lifetime I will have the same congressman as family in Salt Lake and Murray. Alas, my cousins in Riverton and Cottonwood Heights will have to wait. I AM ALL FOR KEEPING SALT LAKE COUNTY WHOLE!

keeps the city core of salt lake voting together, which is how it should be.

Salt Lake County has too many people to be its own district. But this one splits it minimally and mostly keep whole cities together.

I like this better than the main proposals. Grouping south Salt Lake Valley with Utah Valley makes sense demographically, but otherwise keeps Salt Lake whole.

This map splits the populace evenly along similiar voter demographics. It feels much more fair than our current map

this map is the closest to a fair map available

I like this map, though it is not perfect, I like it better than most that I have seen.