August 26, 2025 • 32 mins
A Utah judge threw out Utah's congressional maps on Monday, ruling that the Republican-controlled legislature violated the state constitution when it repealed Prop. 4. in 2020. Now, lawmakers have less than a month to draw new maps, or the court will do it for them.
We discuss the ruling, what it means, how we got here, and what's next.
Plus, a conversation with Dave Daley, a senior fellow at FairVote and the author of Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count.
Tip Jar: Support independent journalism by making a one-time donation here.
Subscribe: Sign up for our newsletter for free at UtahPoliticalWatch.news, and consider becoming a paying subscriber to support our Utah politics coverage.
Sponsor: If you'd like to sponsor this podcast, email news@utahpoliticalwatch.news.
Follow us on social media:
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Bryan Schott (00:09):
Hello, and welcome to special session. I'm your
host, Brian Schott. This is theshow that breaks down the most
important Utah political newsand helps you understand what
happened, how we got here, andwhat it all means. No lobbyists
or legislators or anybody with apolitical agenda as a cohost.
It's just the information youneed from someone who's been
(00:30):
covering Utah politics for morethan a quarter of a century.
In today's episode, we're gonnabe talking about the big
gerrymandering ruling that cameout on Monday that threw out
Utah's congressional maps. We'lltalk about what happened and why
and what's coming next in thatstory. Later in the show, be
joined by one of the foremostexperts in gerrymandering in the
(00:52):
entire country, Dave Daley. Heis a senior fellow with Fair
Vote, and he's the author of oneof my favorite books on the
subject. It's called Rat FuckedWhy Your Vote Doesn't Count.
We'll get his reaction to theruling and talk about why
independent redistrictingefforts often are subverted by
politicians. Hint, it's becausethey like the results from
(01:13):
gerrymandering. We'll get intothat interview a little bit
later in the show, but first,let's talk about the big news.
On Monday, third district judgeDiana Gibson threw out Utah's
congressional maps saying thatthe Republican controlled
(01:34):
legislature violated the Utahconstitution when they repealed
proposition four in 2020. Sowhat this ruling does is it
reinstates prop four in itsentirety.
That is the ballot initiativepassed by Utah voters in 2018
that established an independentredistricting commission and
(01:57):
banned partisan gerrymanderingin the state. If you remember,
lawmakers repealed propositionfour in 2020, and she ruled that
when lawmakers did that, theyviolated the Utah constitution.
So she reinstated propositionfour in its entirety. As part of
that ruling, the congressionalmaps that were approved by
(02:19):
lawmakers in 2021 are no longervalid. Lawmakers have until
September 24 to draw new maps orthe court is going to step in.
And when they draw these newmaps and when they draw these
new maps, they have to complywith the guidelines set out in
(02:40):
proposition four. They have tominimize dividing cities and
counties across multipledistricts. Right now, Salt Lake
County is divided into four.There is a piece of Salt Lake
County in every singlecongressional district. Prop
four says you can't do that.
You have to make the districtsgeographically compact as much
(03:02):
as possible. Utah's a massivestate and with only four
congressional districts. You'regonna have some pretty big
districts, but it's likely we'llhave some smaller ones as well.
They have to try to preserveneighborhoods and communities of
interest, follow natural andgeographic boundaries, and they
cannot use partisan data whendrawing the new lines. That
(03:25):
means they can't dividedistricts up to favor an
incumbent or a candidate or apolitical party, which in this
case would be the Republicans.
It's a Republican controlledlegislature, and they're not
allowed to use any partisan datawhen they are drawing these new
maps. So that's what lawmakershave to do when they draw these
(03:46):
new maps, and they have lessthan a month to do it. But the
ruling also does somethingextremely clever and this is
where I have to admit I waswrong. I thought that no matter
what the judge ruled, theRepublicans in the legislature
were simply going to be able torun out the clock. They were
going to delay by appealing thisdecision first to the Utah
(04:10):
Supreme Court and then to afederal court and maybe the US
Supreme Court.
And that would just puteverything on hold, and they'd
be able to run out the clock.Remember that when this was
argued in court way back inJanuary, the lieutenant
governor's office said that ifnew maps are required, then they
would need to be in place byNovember because, well, that's
(04:33):
only fair. Candidates need toknow what districts they're
running in. They need to get themaps together. They need to map
everything out so voters knowwhat districts they're in.
So that makes sense. They saidthese would need to be in place
by November. I always thoughtthat the ultimate drop dead date
was January 2 because that's theday candidate filing starts.
(04:57):
Once candidates start filing foroffice, you can't change the
rules unless you wanna openyourself up to a big old
lawsuit. So that was theultimate drop dead date, and
realistically, you had probablyuntil the December to put new
maps in place.
And I thought that no matterwhat happened, lawmakers were
going to run out the clock. Lookat what happened in Alabama. In
(05:21):
2022, there was a lawsuitclaiming that the maps they
enacted for their congressionaldistricts were an illegal racial
gerrymander. What the lawsuitsaid is that the percentage of
white voters in the state hadgone down. The percentage of
black voters in the state hadgone up.
And that meant that of the Ibelieve there are seven
(05:43):
districts in Alabama. Of thosedistricts, two of them should be
majority black or at least bedrawn in such a way that black
voters in that state would beable to elect the candidate of
their choice. And what happenedwas a court agreed, ordered the
legislature to go back, redrawthe districts, draw a second
(06:04):
black majority district, Andlawmakers simply didn't do it.
They just redrew the maps andincreased the number of black
voters in one of the districtsand defied the court order. And
that kicked off more litigation.
And I thought something similarwould happen here in Utah. That
lawmakers would appeal, appeal,appeal, and just put this off.
(06:26):
Or if they were forced to drawmaps, then they would flout the
court order and open up anotherlegal challenge which would eat
up more time. I was a 100% wrongbecause what judge Gibson did in
her ruling is somethingextremely clever that I did not
anticipate. What she said waslawmakers have until September
(06:47):
24 to draw new districts.
If they don't do that or if theydraw a new map that does not
comply with prop four, then thecourt steps in. That means the
plaintiffs in this case canpropose a map or a third party
could propose a map that thecourt will then consider and
(07:09):
implement one of those. Andhere's why it's clever. By
putting a time frame on this, avery tight time frame, if
lawmakers decide not toredistrict, not to redraw the
maps, if they try to put a passoff maps that don't meet prop
four, and the court has toimplement its own maps, there's
(07:30):
the very real possibility thatthese new maps, this new map
that's either implemented bylawmakers or the courts, will be
the maps that will be in placewhile the appeals process plays
out. Lawmakers still have theright to appeal.
That process is still open tothem, and Judge Gibson hasn't
(07:51):
stopped them. What she has doneis made it so that it's going to
be very hard to keep the currentmaps in place for the twenty
twenty six election. Because inless than thirty days, lawmakers
have to come up with new maps.And if they don't, then the
court will. And the court canchoose a new map.
(08:12):
Lawmakers will be in a racethen. They will need to find a
court that will enjoin thisorder from judge Gibson. They'll
need to find a higher court thatwill pause the whole process,
give them an injunction, andstop this whole process in its
tracks. If they don't do that,by the time that these maps go
into place, that's going to bethe playing field. Those are the
(08:35):
maps that we will use for thetwenty twenty six election.
That's why what judge Gibson didis extremely clever. And she
likely looked at what happenedin other states, Alabama, where
they simply ran out the clockand defied court orders and
waited until it was too late.And then there was a judge who
(08:56):
stepped in and said, well, it'stoo late to change the maps, so
these current maps are the onesthat are going to be used. I
think she set it up so that it'smore likely than not that we
will have new congressional mapsin place for the twenty twenty
six election no matter what theappeals process looks like. And
that's why I think it is a veryshrewd move on the part of judge
(09:19):
Gibson.
So let's talk aboutgerrymandering. Are Utah's
congressional mapsgerrymandered? It's almost
impossible to argue that theyare not. Just look at the
boundaries. When they were firstadopted in 2021, Dave Wasserman
of the Cook Political Report,who is probably one of the
(09:39):
foremost experts on this, calledthe maps a brutal four
republicans zero democratgerrymander that would likely
shut democrats out of federaloffice for ten years.
Just look at the way that themaps shifted. Before 2021, there
was a competitive district inUtah. It was the fourth
(10:00):
congressional district. BenMcAdams won it in 2018 by a very
narrow margin, and then he wasousted by another very narrow
margin in 2020 by Burgess Owens.When they redrew the maps, what
they did was they tookRepublican voters from the three
(10:20):
other congressional districts,made those districts a little
less Republican because theywere overwhelmingly Republican.
So they diluted the Republicansin those three districts and
then moved them over into theFourth District to make that
much more Republican. So whatthey did was they took the state
from three solidly Republicandistricts and a district that
(10:44):
was kind of a swing district andturned it into four rock solid
Republican districts. The Cookpolitical report rating takes a
look at the makeup of thedistrict and predicts how a
generic republican would do orgeneric republican or a generic
(11:04):
democrat would do when comparedto the rest of the nation as a
whole in the election results.Before 2021, C D 4 was rated as
r plus six, so a republicancandidate would have a six point
advantage in a generic matchup.After the redrawing of the maps,
(11:26):
it went to r plus 16.
So you don't have to be a datascientist to understand that
what they did was they made theFourth Congressional District
much less competitive at theexpense of the other districts,
which were already notcompetitive. CD 1 went from r
plus 20 to r plus 12. So that'sthe district that took the
(11:47):
biggest hit of all of them.Congressional District 2, it got
a little more republican afterthe 2021 maps were put in place.
It went from r plus 10 to r plus11.
CD 3 got a little lessrepublican, and it went from r
plus 17 to r plus 14. And all ofthat was done to make C D 4 much
(12:08):
more republican going from rplus six to r plus 16. Just look
at voter registration data. Nowthe numbers have shifted a
little bit from 2021 to now, butyou can see that Republicans
almost surgically divided theDemocratic voters in the state
among the four congressionaldistricts. They're all within a
(12:31):
few thousand voters of eachother.
There are just over 224,000registered Democrats in Utah. In
Congressional District 1,according to the most recent
numbers, there are 55,000Democrats in Congressional
District 1, 61,000 in C D 2,54,000 in C D 3, and 52,000 in C
(12:53):
D 1. So within a few thousand,you've got the Democrats almost
evenly divided among those fourcongressional districts. So,
yeah, it's gerrymandered. Thosemaps were really gerrymandered.
The Republican controlledlegislature gerrymandered the
absolute hell out of them. Tounderstand what a big deal this
ruling is, it's crucial tounderstand how we got here. So
(13:15):
let's rewind. In 02/2018,proposition four is one of three
citizen sponsored ballotinitiatives that made it to the
ballot. The other two werelegalizing medical cannabis and
Medicaid expansion.
It passed. It barely passed, butit passed. It got 50.34% of the
(13:36):
vote. It actually only passed infour counties in the state, but
that was enough to pass propfour. And what prop four did was
it established an independentredistricting commission.
It took redistricting out of thehands of lawmakers and put it
into the hands of thiscommission. Seven members. And
(13:56):
it was broken down like this.The chair of the commission
would be appointed by thegovernor. There would be one
person appointed by the senatepresident, one by the speaker of
the house, one by the minorityleader in the senate, and one by
the minority leader in thehouse.
Then there would be two memberswho were essentially
nonpartisan. One would beelected by the senate president
(14:17):
and the leader of the majorityparty in the house, And then the
other one would be elected bythe senate minority leader along
with the leader of the sameparty, which is usually the
minority leader in the house.There's some very strict
requirements to make sure thatthose people are quote unquote
nonpartisan. They can't havebeen a lobbyist over the past
(14:38):
four years. They couldn't havebeen a candidate for office.
They could not have beenaffiliated with a political
party. They couldn't have workedfor a political party or a
political action committee.There's a number of very strict
requirements to make sure thatthey were quote unquote
nonpartisan. So that's what thecommission would look like. And
they were tasked with coming upwith maps for Congress, state
(15:01):
senate, state house, stateschool board.
And they would present thesemaps to the legislature. Now the
legislature could reject thosemaps and draw their own, but if
they did that they would have toabide by the requirements set
out in proposition four. But theresponsibility for redistricting
(15:21):
would mostly be given to thisindependent commission. And prop
four had a ban on partisangerrymandering in the state,
wrote it into the state code.Two years later in 2020, the
Utah legislature passed SB 200.
What that did was it repealedproposition four and replaced it
with something else. There wasstill an independent
(15:42):
redistricting commission, but itwas only in an advisory role.
They got to draw maps andpresent them to the legislature,
but there was no requirementthat the legislature had to
adopt those maps or really evenseriously consider them.
Lawmakers once again were giventhe ultimate decision on drawing
these political maps. It alsorepealed the ban on partisan
(16:05):
gerrymandering.
So that was passed in 2020. Andthen in 2021, we had
redistricting, and the maps wehave right now are the ones that
went into effect. In March 2022,two groups, the League of Women
Voters of Utah and Mormon Womenfor Ethical Government filed a
lawsuit in state court. And theyclaimed in this lawsuit that
(16:26):
when the legislature repealedproposition four, it violated
the state constitution and thatthe congressional maps were an
illegal gerrymander. After thatlawsuit was filed, the
legislature filed a motion todismiss, claiming that they
didn't do anything wrong, andthere were no grounds for this
lawsuit.
In October 2022, the courtdenied that motion and let the
(16:48):
lawsuit go forward, which causedthe legislature to appeal to the
Utah Supreme Court. Theyappealed that motion to dismiss
to the Utah Supreme Court. InJanuary 2023, we're almost a
year later now, in January 2023,this Utah supreme court agreed
to take up the case. And then wehad oral arguments in front of
(17:10):
the Utah supreme court in July2023. One year later, July 2024,
the Utah Supreme Court finallyissued its opinion, and it said
that the legislature oversteppedits bounds, overstepped its
constitutional authority when itrepealed a citizen passed ballot
(17:30):
initiative.
And they sent the case back tothe lower court with
instructions to apply strictscrutiny to the case. I'm not a
lawyer, but I like to play oneon a podcast. And this is how to
understand strict scrutiny.That's the highest level of
judicial review when determiningthe constitutionality of a law
(17:51):
passed by a government body. Andwhat it does is it starts from
the presumption that what thislaw is is unconstitutional.
That's where you start. So itwas incumbent on the legislature
to prove that what they did wasnot unconstitutional. This is
this standard is usually usedwhen dealing with fundamental
(18:11):
rights or something involvingrace or religion. And what the
government had to do is they hadto prove that SB 200 was
narrowly tailored to serve thisreally compelling interest by
the government. And they had toprove that it was the least
restrictive policy that theycould have implemented.
(18:31):
So, in a nutshell, that's whatstrict scrutiny is. They had to
prove that this law, SB 200, wasnarrowly tailored. It was
extremely targeted to serve avery compelling government
interest and that it was theleast interest of thing that
they could have done. So thatwas in July 2024. There were
oral arguments about that in thecourt held in January, earlier
(18:56):
this year, 01/31/2025.
And after those oral argumentshappened, the waiting game
started. Waiting, waiting,waiting. I can't tell you how
many times I was asked when arewe gonna hear something about
the gerrymandering case? And Ijust had to say, I don't know.
In April 2025, the judge did askboth parties for supplemental
(19:16):
arguments.
So there was a little bit ofmovement in the spring, but into
after that, absolutely nothing.Which brings us to Monday when
judge Gibson ruled that SB 200was unconstitutional. As part of
their arguments, the legislaturesaid that the Utah constitution
gave them exclusive control overredistricting, and that's kinda
(19:37):
what it says in the Utahconstitution. But judge Gibson
rejected that argument, sayingthat redistricting is a function
that is shared equally by thepeople and by the legislature.
And that's one of the reasonswhy SB 200 was unconstitutional.
Another reason? The Utahconstitution says that it is a
(19:58):
fundamental right of the votersto try to alter or reform their
government at the ballot boxusing a ballot initiative. And
when lawmakers repealedproposition four by passing SB
200, They unconstitutionallyimpaired that reform. They
stepped on the constitutionalrights of the citizenry in order
(20:22):
to avoid this reform that thecitizenry approved at the ballot
box. That was the whole reasonwhy lawmakers rushed into
special session last summer inAugust and put amendment d on
the ballot.
It was in response to thesupreme court ruling that said
lawmakers overstepped theirbounds when they repealed this
(20:44):
citizens' initiative. And whatlawmakers tried to do with
amendment d was to get voters togive up that fundamental
constitutional right to reformgovernment and give themselves
the power to override or repealany ballot initiative. That was
the reason behind amendment d.That's what lawmakers felt was
an emergency and that's why theywent into emergency special
(21:06):
session to put amendment d onthe ballot. Now we all know that
was thrown off the ballotbecause the language was
misleading and vague.
In fact the language that wasgoing to go on the ballot that
was crafted by the senatepresident and the speaker of the
house said that the amendmentdid exactly the opposite of what
it did. It was extremelymisleading. It was an attempt by
(21:28):
lawmakers to rig the system totry and get out of this ruling
by the Utah Supreme Court thatthey overstepped their bounds.
They don't like it when courtstell them that they did
something that they're notsupposed to do or they're not
able to do. They were trying torig the game, and that was the
whole thing behind amendment d.
What judge Gibson ruled was anextension of that, saying that
the citizens in the Utahconstitution have the right to
(21:52):
reform their government throughballot initiatives, and when
lawmakers repealed that reform,which was approved at the ballot
box, then that wasunconstitutional. And
ultimately, Gibson ruled that SB200 was neither narrowly
tailored nor served a compellinggovernment interest, which makes
a lot of sense. And that's whyshe threw out the maps. That's
(22:14):
why lawmakers now have to drawnew maps or the court is going
to step in. And now we're in arace whether there will be new
maps for 2026.
Now there are some people whoare thinking that what this is
going to do is that it willelect a democrat to congress, a
democrat to congress from Utah.That's not guaranteed. What it's
(22:34):
more likely going to do iscreate at least one seat that is
much more competitive than it isright now. Right now, democrats
have no chance of winning any ofthose seats even in a wave year.
Before the gerrymander, beforethe new maps were put in place,
Congressional District 4 wasstill a republican seat, but it
(22:56):
was what you would call a reachswing seat.
If there was a wave election,then democrats had a chance of
winning it. That's exactly whathappened in 2018 when Ben
McAdams upset Mia Love by just afew 100 votes. That was one of
the most expensive races in Utahhistory. The money that flowed
into Utah for that race on bothsides in 2018 over the summer
(23:21):
and into the fall was insane.Millions and millions of dollars
spent on that seat, and themargin was just a few 100 votes.
So don't expect that we're goingto see a democratic seat pop up.
You're not gonna see this bluedot in a sea of red. That's
probably not going to happen.But what's more likely is that
(23:44):
the new maps will almostnecessarily have to create a
seat that will be much morecompetitive. Where democrats
would have a better chance ofwinning.
With the right candidate, withthe right political conditions,
with the right amount of money,you might see a democrat have a
shot at winning that seat. Itwon't be guaranteed, but they'll
(24:07):
have a shot, which is muchdifferent than it is right now
where democrats have zero shotof winning any of those seats.
And the most important electionin all four of our congressional
districts right now is theprimary, and the general
election does not matter. Infact, we're going to talk more
about the implications of thisor what it would mean to have a
competitive seat in Utah in 2026with Dave Daily coming up in
(24:32):
just a few minutes on thepodcast. So stay tuned for that.
So what's next? As we've talkedabout, there's going to be
appeals. There's going to be newmaps. Either the legislature is
gonna draw a map and pass it andsee if it passes muster with the
court, or the court is going tostep in and pick a map. But
there's probably going to be anew map in place within the next
(24:52):
month unless the legislature canfind a judge who will shut the
whole thing down during theappeals process.
But beyond that, beyond 2026, Ican't imagine that the
legislature is just gonna standby and cede the redistricting
power that has been theirs fordecades and decades. I can't
imagine that they're gonna standby and cede that control without
(25:15):
a fight. What is that gonna looklike? I'm sure that they'll
propose minor changes, narrowlytailored changes to this
redistricting commission. Maybethey'll change the requirements
for who can serve.
Maybe they'll loosen some of therestrictions on the nonpartisan
members. I expect them to sortof nibble around the edges to
find ways to weaken thisindependent commission, give
(25:39):
themselves more of a say in theredistricting process, and
change some of the requirementsfor the districts over the next
few years before the next cyclehappens in 2031. And don't
forget, Utah's on track to getanother seat in congress in 2031
according to all the projectionswe've seen because of the
(26:00):
population growth that'shappening here in the state. So
it won't be four seats, it'll befive. And five seats in Utah are
gonna be much harder togerrymander than it is four, but
I'm I'm sure that changes arecoming.
But for now, prop four is nowthe law here in Utah, and
lawmakers have been ordered tocome up with new maps. And
(26:21):
that's pretty much all we knowat this point. Everything else,
we'll just have to wait and see.Coming up next, my conversation
with Dave Daily, a senior fellowat FairVote and one of the
foremost experts ongerrymandering in the entire
country. Hope you enjoy it.
(26:53):
Joining me now is Dave Daly. Heis a senior fellow with Fair
Vote, and he's written a coupleof books that are among my
favorites. I think the one thathas the best title almost of all
time of any political book israt fucked, why your vote
doesn't count. That led to thedocumentary slaying the dragon,
if you've seen that. Also, wroteunrigged, how Americans are
(27:14):
battling back to save democracy.
In short, he's an expert on theredistricting fights, I thought
it'd be really optimal to havehim on the show today to talk
about the ruling here in Utah.Dave Daly, thank you so much for
your time.
Dave Daley (27:27):
A pleasure. Thanks for having me on.
Bryan Schott (27:29):
Let's talk about and get your reaction to the
ruling that came out of Utahyesterday. We've been waiting
for this for years. And finally,a judge said that the Utah
legislature overstepped itsbounds. They violated the Utah
constitution when they repealedthe voter approved independent
commission. The practical effectis she threw out our four c
(27:51):
congressional map and orderedlawmakers to draw new maps by
the middle of next month.
What is your reaction to thisnews?
Dave Daley (28:00):
What a big win for voters in Utah, and what a big
win for just the realizationthat politicians will do
anything they can to cling totilted maps. This is really a
blow for fairness. Voters inUtah in 2018, narrowly but
(28:21):
decisively, approvedconstitutional language that
would put an end to partisangerrymandering in the state.
You've got history of free andfair elections there, and voters
wanted to ensure that maps weredrawn really equitably and that
there was public participationin the process, that lawmakers
could not entrench themselves inoffice. And instead of
(28:43):
respecting the will of thepeople, lawmakers essentially
went ahead and repealed it.
They ignored it. And then theydrew themselves a gerrymandered
map that essentially locked incontrol of Utah's congressional
delegation for a decade anderased what had been a swing
(29:04):
seat that had swung as recentlyas 2018. So sometimes the courts
need to step in for voters, andthat doesn't seem to happen
often enough, especially at thefederal court level on
redistricting these days. It isexciting to see Utah's court
stepping in here and gettingthis done.
Bryan Schott (29:26):
One of the things that I was really sur surprised
out of this ruling is that thejudge did something extremely
clever in establishing thistimeline for lawmakers to come
up with new districts. I hadthought that no matter what the
ruling was going to be, theywould just delay this past the
point of where these maps couldbe implemented. The lieutenant
(29:46):
governor's office said they hadto be in place by November. The
real drop deadline is January 2when candidate filing starts.
But I thought that lawmakers,the republican controlled
legislature would just do whatthey could to push past that
that drop dead date.
But what she did was she put ina deadline to draw these maps by
September 24. And if they don't,then she says that the
(30:07):
plaintiffs or a third party canpropose a map, and then she'll
pick one and put it into place.I think the clever part of that
is lawmakers will still have thechance to appeal this decision,
which they're going to do, butthis puts in place the very real
possibility that these new mapswill be the maps that will be in
place during that appealprocess.
Dave Daley (30:30):
Which is important. Right? Because judges have to go
into this with their eyes wideopen, and all they have to do is
look around the country at howsimilar rulings have been
ignored by state legislatures.In the same way that lawmakers
have been willing to override orignore state constitutional
language approved by voters.Lawmakers have also been willing
(30:54):
to ignore or stiff arm courtsand try to run out the clock.
That's how important these mapsare to them.
Bryan Schott (31:06):
That was Dave Daily, a senior fellow at
FairVote and the author of RatFucked Why Your Vote Doesn't
Count. The rest of thatconversation, it's only
available to paid subscriberswho support my work as an
independent journalist at thesustainer level. They're the
ones who pay to make this workpossible so they get to hear the
(31:27):
full interview. You can listento full podcast episodes for as
little as $10 a month or $100 ayear by subscribing at my
website,utahpoliticalwatch.news. As a
paid subscriber, you'll not onlyget those podcast episodes, but
you'll 'll get subscriber onlynewsletters, commenting
privileges on articles, andaccess to our Discord.
(31:50):
Plus, you'll be helping to makemore podcasts and more
journalism possible. So considerbecoming a paid subscriber today
and making more of my workpossible. Thanks so much for
listening to the show. We'll beback with another episode with
more news and analysis aboutUtah politics real soon.
Hello, and welcome to special session. I'm your
host, Brian Schott. This is theshow that breaks down the most
important Utah political newsand helps you understand what
happened, how we got here, andwhat it all means. No lobbyists
or legislators or anybody with apolitical agenda as a cohost.
It's just the information youneed from someone who's been
(00:30):
covering Utah politics for morethan a quarter of a century.
In today's episode, we're gonnabe talking about the big
gerrymandering ruling that cameout on Monday that threw out
Utah's congressional maps. We'lltalk about what happened and why
and what's coming next in thatstory. Later in the show, be
joined by one of the foremostexperts in gerrymandering in the
(00:52):
entire country, Dave Daley. Heis a senior fellow with Fair
Vote, and he's the author of oneof my favorite books on the
subject. It's called Rat FuckedWhy Your Vote Doesn't Count.
We'll get his reaction to theruling and talk about why
independent redistrictingefforts often are subverted by
politicians. Hint, it's becausethey like the results from
(01:13):
gerrymandering. We'll get intothat interview a little bit
later in the show, but first,let's talk about the big news.
On Monday, third district judgeDiana Gibson threw out Utah's
congressional maps saying thatthe Republican controlled
(01:34):
legislature violated the Utahconstitution when they repealed
proposition four in 2020. Sowhat this ruling does is it
reinstates prop four in itsentirety.
That is the ballot initiativepassed by Utah voters in 2018
that established an independentredistricting commission and
(01:57):
banned partisan gerrymanderingin the state. If you remember,
lawmakers repealed propositionfour in 2020, and she ruled that
when lawmakers did that, theyviolated the Utah constitution.
So she reinstated propositionfour in its entirety. As part of
that ruling, the congressionalmaps that were approved by
(02:19):
lawmakers in 2021 are no longervalid. Lawmakers have until
September 24 to draw new maps orthe court is going to step in.
And when they draw these newmaps and when they draw these
new maps, they have to complywith the guidelines set out in
(02:40):
proposition four. They have tominimize dividing cities and
counties across multipledistricts. Right now, Salt Lake
County is divided into four.There is a piece of Salt Lake
County in every singlecongressional district. Prop
four says you can't do that.
You have to make the districtsgeographically compact as much
(03:02):
as possible. Utah's a massivestate and with only four
congressional districts. You'regonna have some pretty big
districts, but it's likely we'llhave some smaller ones as well.
They have to try to preserveneighborhoods and communities of
interest, follow natural andgeographic boundaries, and they
cannot use partisan data whendrawing the new lines. That
(03:25):
means they can't dividedistricts up to favor an
incumbent or a candidate or apolitical party, which in this
case would be the Republicans.
It's a Republican controlledlegislature, and they're not
allowed to use any partisan datawhen they are drawing these new
maps. So that's what lawmakershave to do when they draw these
(03:46):
new maps, and they have lessthan a month to do it. But the
ruling also does somethingextremely clever and this is
where I have to admit I waswrong. I thought that no matter
what the judge ruled, theRepublicans in the legislature
were simply going to be able torun out the clock. They were
going to delay by appealing thisdecision first to the Utah
(04:10):
Supreme Court and then to afederal court and maybe the US
Supreme Court.
And that would just puteverything on hold, and they'd
be able to run out the clock.Remember that when this was
argued in court way back inJanuary, the lieutenant
governor's office said that ifnew maps are required, then they
would need to be in place byNovember because, well, that's
(04:33):
only fair. Candidates need toknow what districts they're
running in. They need to get themaps together. They need to map
everything out so voters knowwhat districts they're in.
So that makes sense. They saidthese would need to be in place
by November. I always thoughtthat the ultimate drop dead date
was January 2 because that's theday candidate filing starts.
(04:57):
Once candidates start filing foroffice, you can't change the
rules unless you wanna openyourself up to a big old
lawsuit. So that was theultimate drop dead date, and
realistically, you had probablyuntil the December to put new
maps in place.
And I thought that no matterwhat happened, lawmakers were
going to run out the clock. Lookat what happened in Alabama. In
(05:21):
2022, there was a lawsuitclaiming that the maps they
enacted for their congressionaldistricts were an illegal racial
gerrymander. What the lawsuitsaid is that the percentage of
white voters in the state hadgone down. The percentage of
black voters in the state hadgone up.
And that meant that of the Ibelieve there are seven
(05:43):
districts in Alabama. Of thosedistricts, two of them should be
majority black or at least bedrawn in such a way that black
voters in that state would beable to elect the candidate of
their choice. And what happenedwas a court agreed, ordered the
legislature to go back, redrawthe districts, draw a second
(06:04):
black majority district, Andlawmakers simply didn't do it.
They just redrew the maps andincreased the number of black
voters in one of the districtsand defied the court order. And
that kicked off more litigation.
And I thought something similarwould happen here in Utah. That
lawmakers would appeal, appeal,appeal, and just put this off.
(06:26):
Or if they were forced to drawmaps, then they would flout the
court order and open up anotherlegal challenge which would eat
up more time. I was a 100% wrongbecause what judge Gibson did in
her ruling is somethingextremely clever that I did not
anticipate. What she said waslawmakers have until September
(06:47):
24 to draw new districts.
If they don't do that or if theydraw a new map that does not
comply with prop four, then thecourt steps in. That means the
plaintiffs in this case canpropose a map or a third party
could propose a map that thecourt will then consider and
(07:09):
implement one of those. Andhere's why it's clever. By
putting a time frame on this, avery tight time frame, if
lawmakers decide not toredistrict, not to redraw the
maps, if they try to put a passoff maps that don't meet prop
four, and the court has toimplement its own maps, there's
(07:30):
the very real possibility thatthese new maps, this new map
that's either implemented bylawmakers or the courts, will be
the maps that will be in placewhile the appeals process plays
out. Lawmakers still have theright to appeal.
That process is still open tothem, and Judge Gibson hasn't
(07:51):
stopped them. What she has doneis made it so that it's going to
be very hard to keep the currentmaps in place for the twenty
twenty six election. Because inless than thirty days, lawmakers
have to come up with new maps.And if they don't, then the
court will. And the court canchoose a new map.
(08:12):
Lawmakers will be in a racethen. They will need to find a
court that will enjoin thisorder from judge Gibson. They'll
need to find a higher court thatwill pause the whole process,
give them an injunction, andstop this whole process in its
tracks. If they don't do that,by the time that these maps go
into place, that's going to bethe playing field. Those are the
(08:35):
maps that we will use for thetwenty twenty six election.
That's why what judge Gibson didis extremely clever. And she
likely looked at what happenedin other states, Alabama, where
they simply ran out the clockand defied court orders and
waited until it was too late.And then there was a judge who
(08:56):
stepped in and said, well, it'stoo late to change the maps, so
these current maps are the onesthat are going to be used. I
think she set it up so that it'smore likely than not that we
will have new congressional mapsin place for the twenty twenty
six election no matter what theappeals process looks like. And
that's why I think it is a veryshrewd move on the part of judge
(09:19):
Gibson.
So let's talk aboutgerrymandering. Are Utah's
congressional mapsgerrymandered? It's almost
impossible to argue that theyare not. Just look at the
boundaries. When they were firstadopted in 2021, Dave Wasserman
of the Cook Political Report,who is probably one of the
(09:39):
foremost experts on this, calledthe maps a brutal four
republicans zero democratgerrymander that would likely
shut democrats out of federaloffice for ten years.
Just look at the way that themaps shifted. Before 2021, there
was a competitive district inUtah. It was the fourth
(10:00):
congressional district. BenMcAdams won it in 2018 by a very
narrow margin, and then he wasousted by another very narrow
margin in 2020 by Burgess Owens.When they redrew the maps, what
they did was they tookRepublican voters from the three
(10:20):
other congressional districts,made those districts a little
less Republican because theywere overwhelmingly Republican.
So they diluted the Republicansin those three districts and
then moved them over into theFourth District to make that
much more Republican. So whatthey did was they took the state
from three solidly Republicandistricts and a district that
(10:44):
was kind of a swing district andturned it into four rock solid
Republican districts. The Cookpolitical report rating takes a
look at the makeup of thedistrict and predicts how a
generic republican would do orgeneric republican or a generic
(11:04):
democrat would do when comparedto the rest of the nation as a
whole in the election results.Before 2021, C D 4 was rated as
r plus six, so a republicancandidate would have a six point
advantage in a generic matchup.After the redrawing of the maps,
(11:26):
it went to r plus 16.
So you don't have to be a datascientist to understand that
what they did was they made theFourth Congressional District
much less competitive at theexpense of the other districts,
which were already notcompetitive. CD 1 went from r
plus 20 to r plus 12. So that'sthe district that took the
(11:47):
biggest hit of all of them.Congressional District 2, it got
a little more republican afterthe 2021 maps were put in place.
It went from r plus 10 to r plus11.
CD 3 got a little lessrepublican, and it went from r
plus 17 to r plus 14. And all ofthat was done to make C D 4 much
(12:08):
more republican going from rplus six to r plus 16. Just look
at voter registration data. Nowthe numbers have shifted a
little bit from 2021 to now, butyou can see that Republicans
almost surgically divided theDemocratic voters in the state
among the four congressionaldistricts. They're all within a
(12:31):
few thousand voters of eachother.
There are just over 224,000registered Democrats in Utah. In
Congressional District 1,according to the most recent
numbers, there are 55,000Democrats in Congressional
District 1, 61,000 in C D 2,54,000 in C D 3, and 52,000 in C
(12:53):
D 1. So within a few thousand,you've got the Democrats almost
evenly divided among those fourcongressional districts. So,
yeah, it's gerrymandered. Thosemaps were really gerrymandered.
The Republican controlledlegislature gerrymandered the
absolute hell out of them. Tounderstand what a big deal this
ruling is, it's crucial tounderstand how we got here. So
(13:15):
let's rewind. In 02/2018,proposition four is one of three
citizen sponsored ballotinitiatives that made it to the
ballot. The other two werelegalizing medical cannabis and
Medicaid expansion.
It passed. It barely passed, butit passed. It got 50.34% of the
(13:36):
vote. It actually only passed infour counties in the state, but
that was enough to pass propfour. And what prop four did was
it established an independentredistricting commission.
It took redistricting out of thehands of lawmakers and put it
into the hands of thiscommission. Seven members. And
(13:56):
it was broken down like this.The chair of the commission
would be appointed by thegovernor. There would be one
person appointed by the senatepresident, one by the speaker of
the house, one by the minorityleader in the senate, and one by
the minority leader in thehouse.
Then there would be two memberswho were essentially
nonpartisan. One would beelected by the senate president
(14:17):
and the leader of the majorityparty in the house, And then the
other one would be elected bythe senate minority leader along
with the leader of the sameparty, which is usually the
minority leader in the house.There's some very strict
requirements to make sure thatthose people are quote unquote
nonpartisan. They can't havebeen a lobbyist over the past
(14:38):
four years. They couldn't havebeen a candidate for office.
They could not have beenaffiliated with a political
party. They couldn't have workedfor a political party or a
political action committee.There's a number of very strict
requirements to make sure thatthey were quote unquote
nonpartisan. So that's what thecommission would look like. And
they were tasked with coming upwith maps for Congress, state
(15:01):
senate, state house, stateschool board.
And they would present thesemaps to the legislature. Now the
legislature could reject thosemaps and draw their own, but if
they did that they would have toabide by the requirements set
out in proposition four. But theresponsibility for redistricting
(15:21):
would mostly be given to thisindependent commission. And prop
four had a ban on partisangerrymandering in the state,
wrote it into the state code.Two years later in 2020, the
Utah legislature passed SB 200.
What that did was it repealedproposition four and replaced it
with something else. There wasstill an independent
(15:42):
redistricting commission, but itwas only in an advisory role.
They got to draw maps andpresent them to the legislature,
but there was no requirementthat the legislature had to
adopt those maps or really evenseriously consider them.
Lawmakers once again were giventhe ultimate decision on drawing
these political maps. It alsorepealed the ban on partisan
(16:05):
gerrymandering.
So that was passed in 2020. Andthen in 2021, we had
redistricting, and the maps wehave right now are the ones that
went into effect. In March 2022,two groups, the League of Women
Voters of Utah and Mormon Womenfor Ethical Government filed a
lawsuit in state court. And theyclaimed in this lawsuit that
(16:26):
when the legislature repealedproposition four, it violated
the state constitution and thatthe congressional maps were an
illegal gerrymander. After thatlawsuit was filed, the
legislature filed a motion todismiss, claiming that they
didn't do anything wrong, andthere were no grounds for this
lawsuit.
In October 2022, the courtdenied that motion and let the
(16:48):
lawsuit go forward, which causedthe legislature to appeal to the
Utah Supreme Court. Theyappealed that motion to dismiss
to the Utah Supreme Court. InJanuary 2023, we're almost a
year later now, in January 2023,this Utah supreme court agreed
to take up the case. And then wehad oral arguments in front of
(17:10):
the Utah supreme court in July2023. One year later, July 2024,
the Utah Supreme Court finallyissued its opinion, and it said
that the legislature oversteppedits bounds, overstepped its
constitutional authority when itrepealed a citizen passed ballot
(17:30):
initiative.
And they sent the case back tothe lower court with
instructions to apply strictscrutiny to the case. I'm not a
lawyer, but I like to play oneon a podcast. And this is how to
understand strict scrutiny.That's the highest level of
judicial review when determiningthe constitutionality of a law
(17:51):
passed by a government body. Andwhat it does is it starts from
the presumption that what thislaw is is unconstitutional.
That's where you start. So itwas incumbent on the legislature
to prove that what they did wasnot unconstitutional. This is
this standard is usually usedwhen dealing with fundamental
(18:11):
rights or something involvingrace or religion. And what the
government had to do is they hadto prove that SB 200 was
narrowly tailored to serve thisreally compelling interest by
the government. And they had toprove that it was the least
restrictive policy that theycould have implemented.
(18:31):
So, in a nutshell, that's whatstrict scrutiny is. They had to
prove that this law, SB 200, wasnarrowly tailored. It was
extremely targeted to serve avery compelling government
interest and that it was theleast interest of thing that
they could have done. So thatwas in July 2024. There were
oral arguments about that in thecourt held in January, earlier
(18:56):
this year, 01/31/2025.
And after those oral argumentshappened, the waiting game
started. Waiting, waiting,waiting. I can't tell you how
many times I was asked when arewe gonna hear something about
the gerrymandering case? And Ijust had to say, I don't know.
In April 2025, the judge did askboth parties for supplemental
(19:16):
arguments.
So there was a little bit ofmovement in the spring, but into
after that, absolutely nothing.Which brings us to Monday when
judge Gibson ruled that SB 200was unconstitutional. As part of
their arguments, the legislaturesaid that the Utah constitution
gave them exclusive control overredistricting, and that's kinda
(19:37):
what it says in the Utahconstitution. But judge Gibson
rejected that argument, sayingthat redistricting is a function
that is shared equally by thepeople and by the legislature.
And that's one of the reasonswhy SB 200 was unconstitutional.
Another reason? The Utahconstitution says that it is a
(19:58):
fundamental right of the votersto try to alter or reform their
government at the ballot boxusing a ballot initiative. And
when lawmakers repealedproposition four by passing SB
200, They unconstitutionallyimpaired that reform. They
stepped on the constitutionalrights of the citizenry in order
(20:22):
to avoid this reform that thecitizenry approved at the ballot
box. That was the whole reasonwhy lawmakers rushed into
special session last summer inAugust and put amendment d on
the ballot.
It was in response to thesupreme court ruling that said
lawmakers overstepped theirbounds when they repealed this
(20:44):
citizens' initiative. And whatlawmakers tried to do with
amendment d was to get voters togive up that fundamental
constitutional right to reformgovernment and give themselves
the power to override or repealany ballot initiative. That was
the reason behind amendment d.That's what lawmakers felt was
an emergency and that's why theywent into emergency special
(21:06):
session to put amendment d onthe ballot. Now we all know that
was thrown off the ballotbecause the language was
misleading and vague.
In fact the language that wasgoing to go on the ballot that
was crafted by the senatepresident and the speaker of the
house said that the amendmentdid exactly the opposite of what
it did. It was extremelymisleading. It was an attempt by
(21:28):
lawmakers to rig the system totry and get out of this ruling
by the Utah Supreme Court thatthey overstepped their bounds.
They don't like it when courtstell them that they did
something that they're notsupposed to do or they're not
able to do. They were trying torig the game, and that was the
whole thing behind amendment d.
What judge Gibson ruled was anextension of that, saying that
the citizens in the Utahconstitution have the right to
(21:52):
reform their government throughballot initiatives, and when
lawmakers repealed that reform,which was approved at the ballot
box, then that wasunconstitutional. And
ultimately, Gibson ruled that SB200 was neither narrowly
tailored nor served a compellinggovernment interest, which makes
a lot of sense. And that's whyshe threw out the maps. That's
(22:14):
why lawmakers now have to drawnew maps or the court is going
to step in. And now we're in arace whether there will be new
maps for 2026.
Now there are some people whoare thinking that what this is
going to do is that it willelect a democrat to congress, a
democrat to congress from Utah.That's not guaranteed. What it's
(22:34):
more likely going to do iscreate at least one seat that is
much more competitive than it isright now. Right now, democrats
have no chance of winning any ofthose seats even in a wave year.
Before the gerrymander, beforethe new maps were put in place,
Congressional District 4 wasstill a republican seat, but it
(22:56):
was what you would call a reachswing seat.
If there was a wave election,then democrats had a chance of
winning it. That's exactly whathappened in 2018 when Ben
McAdams upset Mia Love by just afew 100 votes. That was one of
the most expensive races in Utahhistory. The money that flowed
into Utah for that race on bothsides in 2018 over the summer
(23:21):
and into the fall was insane.Millions and millions of dollars
spent on that seat, and themargin was just a few 100 votes.
So don't expect that we're goingto see a democratic seat pop up.
You're not gonna see this bluedot in a sea of red. That's
probably not going to happen.But what's more likely is that
(23:44):
the new maps will almostnecessarily have to create a
seat that will be much morecompetitive. Where democrats
would have a better chance ofwinning.
With the right candidate, withthe right political conditions,
with the right amount of money,you might see a democrat have a
shot at winning that seat. Itwon't be guaranteed, but they'll
(24:07):
have a shot, which is muchdifferent than it is right now
where democrats have zero shotof winning any of those seats.
And the most important electionin all four of our congressional
districts right now is theprimary, and the general
election does not matter. Infact, we're going to talk more
about the implications of thisor what it would mean to have a
competitive seat in Utah in 2026with Dave Daily coming up in
(24:32):
just a few minutes on thepodcast. So stay tuned for that.
So what's next? As we've talkedabout, there's going to be
appeals. There's going to be newmaps. Either the legislature is
gonna draw a map and pass it andsee if it passes muster with the
court, or the court is going tostep in and pick a map. But
there's probably going to be anew map in place within the next
(24:52):
month unless the legislature canfind a judge who will shut the
whole thing down during theappeals process.
But beyond that, beyond 2026, Ican't imagine that the
legislature is just gonna standby and cede the redistricting
power that has been theirs fordecades and decades. I can't
imagine that they're gonna standby and cede that control without
(25:15):
a fight. What is that gonna looklike? I'm sure that they'll
propose minor changes, narrowlytailored changes to this
redistricting commission. Maybethey'll change the requirements
for who can serve.
Maybe they'll loosen some of therestrictions on the nonpartisan
members. I expect them to sortof nibble around the edges to
find ways to weaken thisindependent commission, give
(25:39):
themselves more of a say in theredistricting process, and
change some of the requirementsfor the districts over the next
few years before the next cyclehappens in 2031. And don't
forget, Utah's on track to getanother seat in congress in 2031
according to all the projectionswe've seen because of the
(26:00):
population growth that'shappening here in the state. So
it won't be four seats, it'll befive. And five seats in Utah are
gonna be much harder togerrymander than it is four, but
I'm I'm sure that changes arecoming.
But for now, prop four is nowthe law here in Utah, and
lawmakers have been ordered tocome up with new maps. And
(26:21):
that's pretty much all we knowat this point. Everything else,
we'll just have to wait and see.Coming up next, my conversation
with Dave Daily, a senior fellowat FairVote and one of the
foremost experts ongerrymandering in the entire
country. Hope you enjoy it.
(26:53):
Joining me now is Dave Daly. Heis a senior fellow with Fair
Vote, and he's written a coupleof books that are among my
favorites. I think the one thathas the best title almost of all
time of any political book israt fucked, why your vote
doesn't count. That led to thedocumentary slaying the dragon,
if you've seen that. Also, wroteunrigged, how Americans are
(27:14):
battling back to save democracy.
In short, he's an expert on theredistricting fights, I thought
it'd be really optimal to havehim on the show today to talk
about the ruling here in Utah.Dave Daly, thank you so much for
your time.
Dave Daley (27:27):
A pleasure. Thanks for having me on.
Bryan Schott (27:29):
Let's talk about and get your reaction to the
ruling that came out of Utahyesterday. We've been waiting
for this for years. And finally,a judge said that the Utah
legislature overstepped itsbounds. They violated the Utah
constitution when they repealedthe voter approved independent
commission. The practical effectis she threw out our four c
(27:51):
congressional map and orderedlawmakers to draw new maps by
the middle of next month.
What is your reaction to thisnews?
Dave Daley (28:00):
What a big win for voters in Utah, and what a big
win for just the realizationthat politicians will do
anything they can to cling totilted maps. This is really a
blow for fairness. Voters inUtah in 2018, narrowly but
(28:21):
decisively, approvedconstitutional language that
would put an end to partisangerrymandering in the state.
You've got history of free andfair elections there, and voters
wanted to ensure that maps weredrawn really equitably and that
there was public participationin the process, that lawmakers
could not entrench themselves inoffice. And instead of
(28:43):
respecting the will of thepeople, lawmakers essentially
went ahead and repealed it.
They ignored it. And then theydrew themselves a gerrymandered
map that essentially locked incontrol of Utah's congressional
delegation for a decade anderased what had been a swing
(29:04):
seat that had swung as recentlyas 2018. So sometimes the courts
need to step in for voters, andthat doesn't seem to happen
often enough, especially at thefederal court level on
redistricting these days. It isexciting to see Utah's court
stepping in here and gettingthis done.
Bryan Schott (29:26):
One of the things that I was really sur surprised
out of this ruling is that thejudge did something extremely
clever in establishing thistimeline for lawmakers to come
up with new districts. I hadthought that no matter what the
ruling was going to be, theywould just delay this past the
point of where these maps couldbe implemented. The lieutenant
(29:46):
governor's office said they hadto be in place by November. The
real drop deadline is January 2when candidate filing starts.
But I thought that lawmakers,the republican controlled
legislature would just do whatthey could to push past that
that drop dead date.
But what she did was she put ina deadline to draw these maps by
September 24. And if they don't,then she says that the
(30:07):
plaintiffs or a third party canpropose a map, and then she'll
pick one and put it into place.I think the clever part of that
is lawmakers will still have thechance to appeal this decision,
which they're going to do, butthis puts in place the very real
possibility that these new mapswill be the maps that will be in
place during that appealprocess.
Dave Daley (30:30):
Which is important. Right? Because judges have to go
into this with their eyes wideopen, and all they have to do is
look around the country at howsimilar rulings have been
ignored by state legislatures.In the same way that lawmakers
have been willing to override orignore state constitutional
language approved by voters.Lawmakers have also been willing
(30:54):
to ignore or stiff arm courtsand try to run out the clock.
That's how important these mapsare to them.
Bryan Schott (31:06):
That was Dave Daily, a senior fellow at
FairVote and the author of RatFucked Why Your Vote Doesn't
Count. The rest of thatconversation, it's only
available to paid subscriberswho support my work as an
independent journalist at thesustainer level. They're the
ones who pay to make this workpossible so they get to hear the
(31:27):
full interview. You can listento full podcast episodes for as
little as $10 a month or $100 ayear by subscribing at my
website,utahpoliticalwatch.news. As a
paid subscriber, you'll not onlyget those podcast episodes, but
you'll 'll get subscriber onlynewsletters, commenting
privileges on articles, andaccess to our Discord.
(31:50):
Plus, you'll be helping to makemore podcasts and more
journalism possible. So considerbecoming a paid subscriber today
and making more of my workpossible. Thanks so much for
listening to the show. We'll beback with another episode with
more news and analysis aboutUtah politics real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.