Utah at a Glance State Profile - Gov. Huntsman (R) - Sen. Hatch (R) - Sen. Bennett (R) Presidential Politics Congressional Districting - 01 - Bishop (R) - 02 - Matheson (D) - 03 - Cannon (R) Almanac 2006 Home - States & Districts - Elected Officials - Committees - Election Cycles - Guide To Usage Almanac 2004 Almanac 2002 Almanac 2000 Almanac 1998 For district profiles and additional information on the elected officials of Utah, please use the pull-down menu above.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

109th Lineup: 2 R, 1 D
108th Lineup: 2 R, 1 D
District Map: Click here

Utahns expected that the 2000 Census would give Utah a fourth seat in the House of Representatives. But, under the formula used for reapportionment, Utah fell 857 residents short of getting a new district; instead, North Carolina got an unexpected 13th seat. Utah did what comes naturally to Americans today: it sued, twice. The first lawsuit contended that if military personnel stationed abroad should be counted in their states of residence, so should Mormon missionaries, who also can be accurately tracked and matched with their home states. As it happens, North Carolina had thousands of military personnel stationed abroad and only 107 attributable Mormon missionaries. Utah had fewer military personnel stationed abroad but 11,176 Mormon missionaries. In April 2001 a three-judge federal court threw out Utah's case, and one judge called its theory "wildly unfair." In late November 2001 the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling without opinion. Utah's other theory was that the Census Bureau violated the Constitution's injunction that it conduct an "actual enumeration" of the population when it employed what statisticians call "hot-deck imputation": when Census takers after repeated efforts cannot contact residents of one housing unit, they assume that it contains the same number of people in similar housing units nearby. Utah argued that this is "sampling," prohibited, the Supreme Court ruled in another case, by a 1957 statute. This argument did better in court: Utah lost by a 2-1 margin in a three-judge district court in early November 2001 and by 5-4 in the Supreme Court in June 2002. But the upshot was that North Carolina, not Utah, got the 435th district in the 2000 reapportionment.

Utah's legislature drew new congressional district lines in September 2001. Aware that the state was suing for another district, it adopted both three- and four-district plans. The large Republican majorities in the legislature argued that all districts should contain both urban and rural areas; this policy was followed when Utah had two congressional districts, but when it gained a third district in the 1980 Census, and then again after the 1990 Census, the legislature drew plans which had one district entirely inside Salt Lake County. This 2d District had had the temerity in 2000 to elect a Democratic congressman. The Republicans' principle, honored in the breach for the preceding 20 years, forced them to draw three districts which combined urban and rural areas and which increased the Bush 2000 percentage in the 2d District from 57% to 67%. At the same time, the Republican legislators drew a four-district plan, which would go into effect should Utah win one of its then two pending court cases. This plan included a new 4th District entirely within Salt Lake County but within the southern portion of the county, which is heavily Republican. Utah conducted its 2002 election with the three-district plan in place, and the Supreme Court decision narrowly rejecting the state's attack on "hot-deck imputation" came just five days before the June 2002 primary.

There is still some small prospect that Utah may get a fourth district before the 2010 Census. Virginia Republican Tom Davis has sponsored a bill that would award the District of Columbia one full member in the House and would award another to the state entitled under the reapportionment formula to the 436th district--Utah. This measure would have the advantage of giving the District congressional representation without, presumably, changing the current partisan balance of the House. Utah Democrats, however, have been worried that the chance to draw a new districting plan will endanger Matheson even more than the current three-district plan does. Republicans say they wouldn't do any such thing: a claim Democrats can't be blamed for doubting.