The Summit County Council slammed the state this week for its approach to implementing electoral districts, bemoaning the lack of input required from residents and the increasing polarization of local politics.
The Utah Legislature in March passed House Bill 356, which forced Summit County to create districts for County Council seats instead of having five at-large councilors. It also required the creation of a commission of the municipal mayors within the county — Park City, Henefer, Coalville, Oakley, Kamas, Francis and Hideout, which is included because part of the Wasatch County town crosses the border — and one representative from unincorporated Summit County.
The County Council appointed Malena Stevens, a former county councilor and planning commissioner, earlier this year to serve as the chair of the Districting Commission and to represent unincorporated areas of the county.
Stevens on Wednesday presented the Districting Commission’s finalized map to the County Council, kickstarting the 30-day period to schedule and hold a public hearing, as required by the state legislation.
During the first Districting Commission meeting in June, Stevens explained the population of Summit County, divided into five pieces, approximately equates to 8,500 people per district based on the latest census information.
State law requires the districts to have roughly the same population, with only a 10% deviation between the largest and smallest districts. For example, if the largest district has 9,000 people, then the smallest district can’t dip lower than 8,100 people.
Commissioners then broke the county into five pieces, starting with the three school districts.
Stevens, both in conversations with fellow districting commissioners and with the County Council this week, emphasized the legislation’s suggestion that “communities of interest,” such as a school district or tight-knit neighborhood, remain within the same district.
In the Districting Commission’s August meeting, though, there was noticeable tension between four East Side mayors — Mark Marsh of Coalville, Kay Richins of Henefer, Jeremie Forman of Francis and Matt McCormick of Kamas — and their West Side counterparts.
The four mayors disagreed with the census numbers provided by County Clerk Eve Furse and pushed for seemingly minor changes in the Snyderville Basin to ensure a more equal population distribution between the five districts. However, Stevens at the time voiced her opposition to their proposal to separate one Pinebrook district from the rest of the neighborhood, citing the “communities of interest” statement in the legislation and her personal experience as a Pinebrook resident.
Furse additionally raised concerns about the separation, telling commissioners she anticipated confusion among voters if part of a community is in another district than the rest.
Ultimately, though, the Districting Commission went along with the East Side mayors’ changes. One precinct outside of Park City’s municipal boundaries was added to the Park City district, one Pinebrook precinct was absorbed into the general Snyderville Basin district and one North Summit precinct was moved into the South Summit district.
Summit County Councilor Megan McKenna immediately picked up on the separated Pinebrook district during Stevens’s presentation on Wednesday, asking for the reasoning behind the decision and expressing the same concerns about voter confusion as Furse. Specifically, she questioned whether having the one Pinebrook district with the rest of the neighborhood would have still met the population threshold. Stevens responded that it would have.
Stevens further clarified there is only a 3.6% standard deviation between the populations of each district with the proposed map approved by the Districting Commission.
Summit County Councilor Canice Hart also opposed the lone Pinebrook district, but Dave Thomas, the county’s chief civil deputy, said there wasn’t much the County Council could do to change the map. He explained that the state legislation only gives the County Council the authority to send the map back for revisions if it doesn’t meet the statutory requirements established in the bill.
“The upper Pinebrook piece really does not make sense,” Hart said. “As a resident of Pinebrook, we’re the most gerrymandered part of our county as it is. I don’t understand why we would accept that, but if we don’t have any ability but to accept it, fine.”
Summit County Republican Party Chair Ari Ioannides, who has been vocal about his support of the districting bill, said he opposed Hart’s use of the word “gerrymandering” to describe what happened with the map.
“I don’t see it as a partisan issue,” he said in an interview. “I know that it’s convenient for people to think of it that way, but I think of it as more of an issue with geography and representation. … I know a neighborhood was split, but there aren’t any fingers that stick out on the map. There’s not anything that crosses a border. I know (gerrymandering) happens in Utah, but this map isn’t one of those maps. This is a common sense map.”
Hart said he would represent anyone within his district to the best of his ability regardless of the districting outcome. But he also expressed his disappointment and displeasure with the overall process.
“Clearly, this is politically motivated,” Hart said. “We have 43,000 people in this county who were never consulted or asked if they wanted to have districts. Districts are not a new concept. Typically, you might have three districts and two at-large, so to omit that and to take it to where everybody only gets to have one vote every five years, I think, is to work against the people of Summit County. I’m saddened that it’s come to this, that a partisan play has come into our county in such a way.”
Summit County Council Chair Tonja Hanson also said she was unhappy with the state Legislature’s approach to the issue.
“I’m not opposed to districting. I know people on the East Side of the county have wanted districting for a long time. I’m OK with that,” she said. “I’m not OK with the way it happened in the middle of the night and without constituents having a voice in the process.”
Ioannides disagreed with Hanson’s description of how the bill was passed, though, saying the County Council could have implemented districting on its own.
“They said people didn’t have a chance to talk about this, but the council had years to bring this up,” he said. “They’ve heard this feedback for years and ignored people on the East Side.”
Hanson also pushed back against the idea that districting would provide more representation for East Side residents, a stance the Summit County Republican Party has frequently communicated in its messaging about the need for the change.
“I’ve heard over and over, people say, ‘We don’t have representation on the East Side of the county.’ I’m a fifth-generation (resident) from the East Side of the county,” Hanson, a Democrat, said. “What else do you need, except for to have a different letter behind your name on the ballot? That’s all that matters, and I think that’s really, really unfortunate.”
Summit County Democratic Party Chair Rory Swensen was unavailable for comment by the time of publication.
Gov. Spencer Cox said he intended to call a special session to revise language in the bill after he signed it into law in March because the legislation had “unintended consequences.” For example, Wasatch County has both at-large seats and councilors elected in districts, but the new law hypothetically forces Wasatch County to eliminate its at-large positions, too.
Wasatch County officials refused to comply with the legislation and did not create a districting commission over the summer, betting on being excluded from the districting requirements once changes are made.
Summit County Deputy Manager Janna Young said she expects the special session to be held on Sept. 15 — about five months after it was originally anticipated in April.
“This bill is one of the items that they will consider,” Young confirmed. “There was a bill presented in the interim session in August that the committee approved to forward to a special session that had some parameters in there, such as a grandfather (clause) for Wasatch County and Salt Lake County, because it also is looking to expand this districting requirement to all counties.”
Summit County may see one change to its districting process after the special session, though.
“There is a provision in that bill that would change the way that current council members in Summit County are assigned to districts,” Young said. “Instead of being by lot, as in the current law, it would be assigned based on where you live unless two of you or more are in the same district, and then it would be done by lot.”
The county councilors will finish their current term in whatever seat they acquire.
The county is required to schedule a public hearing on the proposed map by Oct. 3, but a specific date has not been selected yet.
However, 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, the map, or the districting process.