Former Summit County Councilor Malena Stevens was appointed to represent unincorporated residents on a newly established districting commission. The commission, which was formally created seconds before Stevens’ appointment, is tasked with dividing Summit County into five distinct geographical districts voters will belong to.
The state Legislature this session changed how Summit County’s governing body is elected in what county leaders called an 11th-hour passage of House Bill 356. The new law requires Summit County to implement districts for council seats instead of having five at-large councilors.
H.B. 356 additionally mandated the creation of the districting commission by June 1. The County Council created the group on Wednesday, just before appointing Stevens to it.
Stevens, a Pinebrook resident, served as chair of the County Council in 2024 and represented Seat C for four years. She has a long history of public service and civic involvement in the Summit County area, including two terms on the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission and a career with the Park City Police Department as a victim advocate years before she decided to run for office.
Districting commissioners will meet throughout the summer and early fall to split Summit County into five geographic areas compliant with state and federal laws. Each district needs to have roughly the same population with only a 10% deviation based on numbers from the most recent census.
The commission will consist of the municipal mayors within the county, including Park City, Henefer, Coalville, Oakley, Kamas, Francis and Hideout, and one representative from unincorporated Summit County appointed by the County Council: Stevens. County Clerk Eve Furse will also sit on the commission as a non-voting member.
County Councilor Roger Armstrong was the lone dissenting vote for both the adoption of the ordinance creating the districting commission and Stevens’ appointment.
Armstrong declined to comment on why he voted no.
The Summit County Republican Party has characterized the legislation as ensuring better representation for the East Side, which tends to lean more conservative than Park City and the Snyderville Basin. All elected positions in Summit County are held by Democrats, and a Republican hasn’t been elected to a County Council seat since 2016.
The Summit County Democratic Party, meanwhile, called the new law the GOP’s way to deal with “being upset” about recent elections and expressed concerns about fewer points of contact for constituents if councilors are tied to specific geographic areas.
Democratic Party Chair Rory Swensen additionally voiced anxieties about potential gerrymandering given the political makeup of the districting commission and a letter sent to Gov. Spencer Cox by four East Side mayors.
The original version of the bill would have required all councilors to end their terms early and forced an election — with all the seats tied to the new geographical districts — this year.
That language was later removed from the final version of the bill, however, and state legislators determined current county councilors will be assigned to the new districts by lot until the next scheduled election.
Mayors Mark Marsh of Coalville, Kay Richins of Henefer, Jeremie Forman of Francis and Matt McCormick of Kamas in April sent a letter to Gov. Spencer Cox and state Legislature leadership expressing their “strong support” for the bill and campaigning for lawmakers to reintroduce the language mandating a special election. They claimed it would be a necessary step to ensure “fair and equal representation” for Summit County residents.
All four of the mayors who signed the letter are registered Republicans. The Democratic mayors of Oakley and Park City were not included in the letter’s circulation.
The districting commission is required to present a proposed map of district boundaries to the County Council on or before Oct. 1. The County Courthouse will then need to schedule a public hearing within 30 days of the presentation.
However, Summit County Chief Civil Deputy Dave Thomas in April called the hearing “legally [a] sham” because the County Council will be responsible for approving the boundary map after the public hearing despite not having the power to change H.B. 356 or the districting process.