State lawmakers decided Monday that Wasatch County does not have to mandate districts for councilors as required in House Bill 356. The exception does not extend to Summit County, which must create five distinct districts.
In March, an 11th-hour vote during the last day of the general session ensnared Wasatch County in the requirements of H.B. 356, which demands all five county councilors in Summit County to be tied to a specific district rather than representing the county in at-large council positions.
Wasatch County, which has been operating as a council-manager form of government since 2003, was looped into the bill at the last minute. The county was required to shift from five districts and two at-large members to seven distinct districts.
In June, Wasatch County Manager Dustin Grabau said the county did not intend to create those districts, adding that state leaders had “given their assurances” that there would be an amendment to the law. With just over 37,000 residents, Grabau said several councilors tend to run unopposed in elections, but that the at-large seats see the most competition.
Grabau said there would be a risk of “not having as strong of a pool” of candidates with further division of districts.
The majority of lawmakers in a special legislative session Monday voted to exclude Wasatch County from the law. Still, Sen. Daniel McCay expressed his confusion as to why H.B. 356 should not extend to Wasatch County. He called attention to the work Summit County has done to create a districting commission and comply with the law.
“Maybe what this is, this is Wasatch County asking for a special favor when they were completely out of compliance with the law. They had no intent to comply with the law, and as a result kind of thumb their nose at us,” McCay said.
McCay said his confusion stemmed from figuring out the difference between Summit County and Wasatch County where only the former would face consequences of the law.
“I’m just not sure that the right thing to do is to make it worse. … It takes counties that are in the same situation, same population, similar classification and creates two different governance models for those types when we’ve already decided that 100% district, it was the right way to go,” McCay said.
McCay was one of 11 lawmakers to vote “no” on the bill’s passing. The legislation passed the Senate 15-11 and the House 57-16 Monday morning.
With the amendment, Summit County will also face penalties if it does not follow the new legislation. There will now be consequences if Summit County does not comply and adopt the new districting commission map by Oct. 15.