The Summit County Council officially approved a map dividing the county into five geographical voting districts this week, ushering in a new era of Summit County history after two decades of at-large elections.
The county held a public hearing on the proposed map earlier this month, but the County Council delayed its vote until Wednesday to give residents another opportunity to comment on the suggested districts. The delay also gave the county time to see if any major changes would be made to the state law mandating the implementation of districts during the Legislature’s special session on Monday.
However, the modifications made to the bill this week largely did not affect Summit County. The county is still required to participate in the districting process, with the possibility of having transient room tax dollars suspended if the local government fails to comply by Jan. 1, 2026. The amendments also created an Oct. 15 deadline for the County Council to approve the map and assign councilors to their districts.
The County Council quickly met the new deadline, though, and unanimously approved the districting map this week. No county residents came forward to speak during the continued public hearing, which was held before the vote.
“I’d just like to take one moment to thank the Districting Committee and the chair,” said County Councilor Canice Harte, who made the motion to accept the map. “It involved a lot of people, a fair amount of time and effort on behalf of the Districting Committee, so I wanted to say thank you very much for the time and effort they put in to serve the community.”
Three of the five current county councilors were automatically assigned to the districts they live in: Hanson represents District 1, which is the North Summit district; Chris Robinson represents District 4, which encompasses the Snyderville Basin; and Harte represents District 5, which includes the Jeremy Ranch and Pinebrook areas.
Councilors Megan McKenna and Roger Armstrong were assigned to their districts by lot, as outlined by the state legislation, because they both live in the Park City area. To decide who would be attached to which district, Summit County Clerk Eve Furse put the two councilors’ names into a paper bag and blindly drew which one would remain the representative in District 3.
Ultimately, the district went to Armstrong. McKenna was assigned to District 2 in South Summit. Armstrong and McKenna were both elected in 2024 and will serve the remainder of their terms. However, McKenna will not be able to run in District 2 again unless she relocates there.
The Utah Legislature passed H.B. 356 in March to force Summit County to create districts for County Council seats instead of having five at-large representatives. It also required the creation of a commission of municipal mayors within the county — Park City, Henefer, Coalville, Oakley, Kamas, Francis and Hideout, which was included because part of the Wasatch County town crosses the border — and one representative from unincorporated Summit County.
However, the bill had what Gov. Spencer Cox called “unintended consequences” by inadvertently forcing the districting requirements onto Wasatch County, too, despite the legislation being written to seemingly target Summit County.
Wasatch County has operated as a council-manager form of government since 2003, with five councilors representing districts and two at-large representatives. Wasatch County Manager Dustin Grabau in June said the county did not plan to form a districting committee, as mandated by state law, and lawmakers during this week’s special session voted to exclude Wasatch County from the requirements.
The population of Summit County, divided into five pieces, equates to about 8,500 people per district based on the latest census information. The law required 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.
The Districting Commission started dividing the map using the boundaries of the county’s three school districts. Later, 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.
The legislation has been a hot topic for Summit County residents since its passage this spring. The Summit County Republican Party characterized the bill 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.
Meanwhile, the Summit County Democratic Party called the law the GOP’s way to deal with “being upset” about recent elections — current GOP chair Ari Ioannides lost his bid for County Council against McKenna last fall despite garnering strong support on the East Side — and expressed concerns about fewer points of contact for constituents if councilors are tied to specific geographic areas.
Democratic Party Chair Rory Swensen, who is running for mayor of Coalville, voiced concern about potential gerrymandering given the political makeup of the Districting Commission and a letter four East Side mayors sent to Cox urging him to endorse a special election in November.
Mayors Mark Marsh of Coalville, Kay Richins of Henefer, Jeremie Forman of Francis and Matt McCormick of Kamas in April sent a letter to 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.
Mayoral positions are non-partisan in Summit County, but all four of the mayors who signed the letter are registered Republicans. Democratic mayors Zane Woolstenhulme of Oakley and Park City’s Nann Worel were not included.
The original version of the bill would have required all councilors to end their terms early and forced a special election — with all seats tied to the new geographical districts — this year. The language was later removed from the final version of the bill when state legislators determined county councilors could retain their seats and be assigned to the new districts by lot if necessary.