Skip to content

October 13, 2011


Congress: Rep. King – Garber Modified King

Congress - King_02

Deviation From Ideal Population

Largest District: 0.00% (+1 person)

Smallest District: -0.00% (-0 people)

Congress – King_02  (kmz file)

Read more from Maps, U.S. Congress
  • John Harrison

    I’m shocked.  This is a reasonable pizza.  It preserves communities of interest, has an urban/rural mix in each district, and doesn’t slice Salt Lake County four ways.  What’s the catch?

    This looks like a reasonable compromise to me, I hope this map is taken seriously at the legislature.

  • Anonymous

    Honestly, I would love to hear a valid complaint about this map, because I can’t see one.

    • June Taylor

      One complaint some of us have in SLC is: There are actually quite a lot of folks in urban areas of Utah who are not anywhere near as rightwing as the Utah GOP has become, and having the Lege split our areas into enough pieces that our views aren’t represented is infuriating.  This map is the best of a rotten bunch of pizzas.

    • David from Sandy UT

      The pizza maps completely ignore the needs and interests of rural voters.  Instead of having 25% of the congressional delegation highly focused on the needs and interests of ~25% of the voters, pizza maps guarantee that rural voters will outnumbered and potentially out-contributed 3 to 1 by voters in urban and suburban areas.

      On the other hand, this map does a better job of keeping urban and suburban communities of interest together, which makes it less vile than maps designed explicitly to de-facto-disenfranchise independent, moderate, and progressive voters.

  • Anonymous

    This is an excellent compromise map.  It has an urban/rural mix.  It’s compact.  It splits Salt Lake County into two, and Utah County only in two, compared to the other finalists.  This is good politics!  And goodwill for the people if passed as the U.S. Congressional Map.

  • Imagedancer

    What is the magic of an urban rural split?  Since when do rural voters have a common community interest with urban voters?  How is The Committee’s guiding principal of Compactness reflected in stretching boundaries far afield to satisfy the irrelevant (according to The Committee’s governing principles) urban rural split for any congressional district?  Nowhere in The Committee’s governing principals is the concept of an Urban Rural Split mentioned.  The idea of such a split is the brain-child of Senate President Michael Waddoups and House Speaker for their Becky Lockhart own political purposes.

  • Brent Gardner

    This looks pretty good. One of the best I have seen. I hope the republicans will go for it.

  • Scott Christian Bauer

    There is no justifiable reason to divide Salt Lake City when equitable redistricting can be accomplished while keeping Salt Lake City intact. That said, since Salt Lake County is divided among only two districts and Park City is in the same district as Salt Lake City, I could live with this plan. I like my approach much better, but implementation of this plan would not infuriate me … unlike a few others I’ve seen.

  • Michele Bellon

    This is the only reasonable compromise map I have seen. I hope that doesn’t doom it to sudden death.

  • Guest

    This one looks kosher to me.

  • dudeman

    This should be the map. Done!

  • qthePEOPLE

    This map needs to go before the main legislative body for a vote!

    • Anonymous

      good luck with that.  since salt lake county is more liberal than the legislature likes. i wonder how they like the sit in this weekend?

  • dudeman

    This is a compromise. That is why it is good. You can have true urban – rural split in each district w/o going crazy carving SL, Utah and Davis counties. Of course SL County is going to be split up. Just in away that gives a chance to everybody. The other maps – I think the Suburban conservatives are scared of the rural counties (pretty much out of their minds).

    • Anonymous

      it won’t be long until the rural voters are scared to death of the urban voters.  we need the rural communities, but it will ultimately be necessary to hold the rural areas available for farming and recreation.  or all of you rural voters afraid?????

  • David Edward Garber

    I think that these modifications are worsening this proposal a bit, as it devolves gradually from the original rationale upon which it was based.  Nevertheless, I think that it’s still pretty decent, despite such changes.  Here are three other variants that may or may not be worth considering:

    * Garber:
    * Plewe:
    * Anderson:

  • Guest

    This is by far the best compromise I have seen.  I can definitely support this map.

  • David from Sandy UT

    “The cake is a lie.”  And the “pizza slice” approach to redistricting is based on the idealistic yet unrealistic assumption that rural voters will be able to compete for attention while being outnumbered (and potentially out-contributed) 3 to 1 by voters in urban and suburban precincts.

    Although I strongly object to the majority party’s requirement that we ignore the simple logic that ~25% of the voters should have 25% of the congressional delegation focused on their unique issues, this map is less “rude, crude, and ig’nern’t” than the other pizza maps currently being discussed.

  • Revo

    Salt Lake City should be kept intact as the people who work and live here understand the nature of living in a city and all of it’s pros and cons. We need representation that truly reflects the people living in Salt Lake county. So be it if the Democrats in the city give Republicans a run for their money or should I say unbalanced power.

  • Karen Ferguson

    This map is better than most.   It is still sad our communities are divided so we ca not get total representation for our interests.

  • Erik Gümbrecht

    Very similar to my proposal “Thin Crust Pizza”

  • Cotterill

    This map, by far, presents a better representation for it’s citizens than any of the other maps… I too, hope that doesn’t mean it’s demise…

  • Jason Myers

    While not the best map I’ve seen, it at least makes sense.  I’d support this map if it were to be voted on.

  • Kent Peterson

    This looks like a reasonable and balanced compromise.  If too many people are completely satisfied with any proposal, there must be something wrong with it.

  • Anonymous

    it doesn’t matter. the retardicans will rule us forever. long live king lockhardt.

  • Aere Greenway

    I like this better than the others.

  • Marilyn Miller PhD

    In order to encourage voting in Utah, we must have fair boundaries. This looks like the best I ahve seen.

  • Jennaire

    This is the best map I’ve seen in the last 2 weeks, and I could only hope this map would seriously be considered!

  • Sbracken007

    Finally, I think you have come to the most equitable districts with a mix of rural/urban citizens.  There has to be a concerted effort by our elected officials to do all they can to GOTV. This map gives people a reason to go to the polls because the districts are competative rather than artificially stacted in favor of one party!

  • Citizen from the 2nd District

    While I am sure that a better compromise could be made, this one appears to be a justifiable attempt. I support this map.

  • Tyrell Aagard

    I can deal with this map, though I definitely liked the Original Garber map over this revision. I specifically spot a lot of problems in Utah County. Payson and Salem are in separate districts, and those cities are more like two halves of a whole than anything. Same thing with Spanish Fork – Springville – Mapleton.And again in American Fork – Lehi. And why chop North Salt Lake off from the rest of Davis County? Also, though I don’t think splitting Salt Lake County along I-15 (as Garber’s original map does) is ideal for many reasons, I find that far preferable than the strange split down 13th West that this map does.

    Essentially, I can see that this map is being offered as a compromise map; however, the original Garber map is much better than this revision. Everything that his map changes only serves to map the Garber map worse, not better.

    With that all said, even with these annoying revisions, this map is still leaps and bounds ahead of most every other map that has been discussed or passed. It is clearly non-political for either side, splits up the districts in obvious cultural and geographical areas, has small and compact districts that are easy to get around, and doesn’t royally screw over rural Utah nearly as bad.

    I think my biggest complaint about this map is lumping southern Utah in with Utah County, but that’s something that just simply can’t be avoided, there’s not enough population to give them their own district. Oh well, we’ve still got the 2022 redistricting, hopefully southern Utah can get their own district then.

  • moab mike

    what kind of “civilization” have we  become when “not as bad as the rest” is viewed as acceptable?
    The obvious intent of this and virtually every other map considered by the very partisan republicans is to dilute (or shut out) any voice that is not in lock-step with their own.
    As the population of SL must be divided, why isn’t the southwest added in with the like minded folks from Utah County while the largest “community of interest” is maintained?
    Why are communities like my own (Moab) silenced by inclusion with Provo?  The only thing we have in common is that our tax-dollars go to the same place.

    This map, and others under consideration, virtuallty guarantee that many tax-paying citizens will go without a voice or fair representation…the very impetus of the original American Revolution.

  • Brad

    Seems pretty reasonable. Regardless, it does not matte what comes out of all this someone is going to be ticked.