Congressional Plans "Type" column: P = Pizza and D = Doughnut "SL Co. Split" column: Number of districts within Salt Lake County

Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total

The goal of this plan is to maximize Republican opportunities. This includes creating an almost entirely rural district outside Alex's of Salt Lake County and having Salt Lake County split by the remaining three districts. Congressman lives in the 1 Alex de la Torre Congressional Fourth District, where as Congressmen and are both in the Second District. The First and Third 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 2 Districts do not have an incumbent Congressman. This plan was drawn with the goal of either defeating Congressman Matheson or forcing him to retire. There are few if any weaknesses of the plan.

I didn’t look at any seats or existing political demographics, as I don’t feel redistricting should take those into account. Instead it should be based, as much as possible, on keeping as many existing political boundaries as possible intact. This means that I kept every county in the same district except for Salt Lake County (split into 3 districts due to population 2 Beau Sorensen Sorensen Plan 0.05 ‐0.10 0.15 D 3 requirements) and part of Davis County (due to 1st district area being just a bit too populous). I tried to keep cities intact, but because it just went from county to precinct, I wasn’t able to do so quite as easily. I’d recommend that the committee adjust this outcome so that cities stay together.

This map was designed with ’s population centers and transportation routes in mind. Only three counties (Davis, Salt David Edward Lake, and Utah) are in more than one district. Only four cities (Bountiful, West Jordan, Millcreek, and Pleasant Grove) are 3 Garber CDs 0.05 ‐0.06 0.11 D 2 Garber in more than one district. All present Congresspeople remain residents of their respective districts. This map was designed with minimal attention to present district boundaries (for better or for worse).

This map was designed with Utah’s population centers and transportation routes in mind. Only three counties (Davis, Salt David Edward 4 Garber CD Lake, and Utah) are in more than one district. Only four cities (Bountiful, West Jordan, Millcreek, and Pleasant Grove) are 0.05 ‐0.06 0.11 D 2 Garber in more than one district. All present Utah Congresspeople will remain within their present (respective) districts.

This map was designed with Utah’s population centers and transportation routes in mind. Only three counties (Davis, Salt David Edward Lake, and Utah) are in more than one district. Only three cities (Bountiful, , and Pleasant Grove) are in more 5 Garber CDs B 0.05 ‐0.06 0.11 P 2 Garber than one district. At least two present Congresspeople remain residents of their respective districts. This map was designed with minimal attention to present district boundaries (for better or for worse).

This map was designed with Utah’s population centers and transportation routes in mind. Only three counties (Davis, Salt David Edward Lake, and Utah) are in more than one district. Only three cities (Bountiful, Murray, West Jordan, and Pleasant Grove) are in 6 Garber CDs C 0.08 ‐0.07 0.15 P 3 Garber more than one district. All three present Congresspeople remain residents of their respective districts. This map was designed with minimal attention to present district boundaries (for better or for worse).

I tried to keep Utah County and Salt Lake City as complete as possible, they have their own unique culture and unique 7 Jason Steffen Jason Utah Plan interests. I have several of the northern urban areas grouped together to form another district. Finally I tried to group as 0.02 ‐0.03 0.05 D 3 much of rural Utah together as their concerns are far different than the other districts. 8 John Evans Plan 1No description. 0.04 ‐0.02 0.06 P 3 9 John Evans two No description. 0.04 ‐0.05 0.09 P 4 Stanard_1 This map keeps all counties intact, except Utah and Salt Lake which are too big. It also keeps the current Urban/Rural mix in 10 Jon Stanard 0.06 ‐0.06 0.12 P 3 Submit all counties. It does not have districts which are overly safe to any one party. Most would be competitive. I attempted to put parts of the Salt Lake valley into multiple districts while keeping district 2 primarily the Salt Lake area. The Salt Lake area is likely to have similar wants, needs and concerns beyond politics so I think this is a good idea. I did put 11 Norman Allen normallen plan1 0.04 ‐0.07 0.11 D 3 portions of the SL area in to district 3 and 4 so that the populations are more balanced and so that those districts have representation from the city as well as country settings. My objective was to focus the Congressional districts upon key issues of both urban and rural concern. A representative Swann Congress 12 Steve Swann only has so much time and energy. By sectioning ranch, rural and land issues from urban issues they can better keep 0.07 ‐0.09 0.16 D 3 Plan 1 focused on the key issue of their respective constituencies. Congrassional 13 Brian Fabbi No description. 0.08 ‐0.08 0.16 P 2 District 14 Jeremy Johnson Turbo This is my attempt at preserving similar communities. 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 3 Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total This plan would allow each district to be approximately equal at 690,900 citizens. A district from Salt Lake City across the north‐eastern part of the state would include several national parks and national forests, and have a generally urban and/or high mountain culture and history. A district in the north‐western part of the state would include some areas south 15 Neil Longo redistrict1 of the great Salt Lake, but mostly represent the rural communities of the north‐west. A district in the south‐west would 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 3 include St. George and Filmore. Finally a district extending down the San Pete Valley from Provo would give representation to the various valley communities of Utah. This plan would, under current circumstances, give the Democrats 1 safe seat in the house, while ensuring that Republican votes in the Provo area and much of the Utah valley are not disenfranchised.

16 Patrick Adamson PatrickPlan This plan is designed with rural vs urban, socioeconomic status, and political views accounted for. 0.07 ‐0.05 0.12 D 3

17 Patrick Adamson Patrick's plan 4 District plan 0.02 ‐0.02 0.04 D 2

The 2nd district is entirely within the confines of Salt Lake County, specifically the eastern portion. This allows the similar communities of the Salt Lake Valley to be represented as one community, rather than being split up to dilute their presence as many Utah partisans would wish. The 3rd district includes the entirety of Utah County, as well as portions of southern Salt Lake County to meet the magic number of about 691,000. Utah County’s communities all have a lot in common, and little would be gained from splitting them up into a “pie,” in the same manner as Salt Lake County. However, Utah County alone does not meet the population requirement, so portions of Southern Salt Lake County are included in district 3 to meet that number. This leaves the 1st and 4th districts to be split between the entire rest of the state of Utah. SLC/UTC + The split I utilized in this map was a North/South Split. I constructed the 1st district using the entirety of Box Elder, Cache, 18 Tyrell Aagard North/South 0.05 ‐0.05 0.10 D 3 Rich, and Weber Counties, as well as the majority of Davis County. This district well represents the cities north of Salt Lake Split (Davis County, Ogden, Brigham City, Logan, etc.). The 4th district is composed of the entirety of Tooele, Juab, Millard, Sanpete, Sevier, Beaver, Iron, Piute, Washington, Kane, Garfield, Wayne, San Juan, Emery, Grand, Carbon, Uintah, Duchesne, Wasatch, Daggett, Summit, and Morgan Counties, as well as portions of Salt Lake (western) and Davis Counties. This district is heavily rural, which I believe should be true of at least one of Utah’s Congressional districts. It is difficult for one representative to represent both heavily rural and heavily urban portions of their district simultaneously in Congress – the differences between the two are simply too great to advocate for both. Having a representative there to fight for the interests of an almost entirely rural district will help these rural areas much better than any of the 3 current districts do.

This 4‐way district split is one that has been often talked about in the Utah media as of late. I’ll first focus on the 2nd and 3rd districts. The 2nd district is entirely within the confines of Salt Lake County, specifically the eastern portion. This allows the similar communities of the Salt Lake Valley to be represented as one community, rather than being split up to dilute their presence as many Utah partisans would wish. The 3rd district includes the entirety of Utah County, as well as portions of southern Salt Lake County to meet the magic number of about 691,000. Utah County’s communities all have a lot in common, and little would be gained from splitting them up into a “pie,” in the same manner as Salt Lake County. However, Utah County alone does not meet the population requirement, so portions of Southern Salt Lake County are SLC‐based 2, included in district 3 to meet that number. This leaves the 1st and 4th districts to be split between the entire rest of the 19 Tyrell Aagard Utah Co.‐based 0.05 ‐0.05 0.10 D 3 state of Utah. The split that made the most sense to me was an eastern/western split, though I also played around with a 3 North/South split. I constructed the 1st district using the entirety of Tooele, Juab, Millard, Sanpete, Beaver, Iron, and Washington Counties, as well as portions of Salt Lake and Davis Counties. This district closely mirrors the more rural parts of the current 3rd district (that is, those parts not within the confines of Utah County) as well as small portions of the current 2nd district (Southeastern Utah). The 4th district is composed of Box Elder, Cache, Rich, Weber, Morgan, Summit, Wasatch, Daggett, Duchesne, Carbon, Uintah, Sevier, Emery, Grand, Piute, Wayne, Garfield, Kane, and San Juan Counties, as well as portions of Davis County. This district closely mirrors a merger of the current 1st and 2nd districts, in that it represents Northern and Eastern Utah.

This plan was a first effort with the goal of drawing 4 contiguous Congressional districts with equal populations. Also, an Draft effort was made to keep counties in the same district to the highest extent possible while satisfying the other 20 Brian Tribe Congressional requirements. Only Salt Lake, Davis, and Summit Counties are in two districts. Some fine tuning may be needed around 0.08 ‐0.06 0.14 D 2 District Plan the borders of District 2 so that entire cities can be in one district where possible. I was not able to discern city boundaries using this redistricting tool. Please respond with any questions. This was quite a simple effort. Congress ‐ Districts are based on metropolitan statistical areas. Salt Lake metro area is large enough to divide between two districts. 21 Daniel Mejia Metro 0.10 ‐0.09 0.19 P 3 25 counties intact. None broken among 3 separate districts. Communities Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total Congress ‐ Keep 4 counties are intact; none are broken among three districts. Downtown communities are kept together, and rural 22 Daniel Mejia 0.06 ‐0.09 0.15 D 2 It Together Southern Utah is no longer bundled with urban Salt Lake County. Congress ‐ Davis‐ 23 Daniel Mejia Salt Lake County is represented by 4 districts. Davis and Utah Counties are preserved as communities. 0.04 ‐0.04 0.08 D 3 Centered This plan starts with the idea of dividing Salt Lake County down the middle of I‐15 and then going a little north or south as 24 Dave Hulme big and small 0.01 ‐0.01 0.02 D 2 necessary to get to the right number Then it takes most of Utah County and some other areas as a district and finally the This plan attempts to keep much of the current districting while allowing for the inevitable split of Salt Lake County. Drawbacks include mixing Salt Lake County with much of the rural part of the state (plus St. George and Cedar City) 25 David Hulme 4 0.01 ‐0.02 0.03 D 2 although there aren’t enough people in the ‘rural’ areas to have their own seat, so it has to be expected that they are mixed into part of another district. Uniformly Large The goals were these: create sufficiently large districts while minimizing “fingers” so all representatives have a similar travel 26 Ethan Olson 0.02 ‐0.03 0.05 P 2 District Areas burden, attempt to minimize skew when splitting counties or municipalities, use prominent borders where possible.

My intention was to preserve the interests of rural Utahns, while also protecting the vote strength of Salt Lake City residents. UT‐03 and UT‐04 are both drawn to be a mix of rural and urban voters, as is UT‐01 to an extent. UT‐02 is 27 Johnny L Fair District Plan centered in Salt Lake City, which restores the compact district that was chopped up in the 2000 redistricting session. The 0.01 ‐0.02 0.03 D 2 plan gives both majority and minority parties representation in Congress, and minimizes population deviation and splitting up of communities of interest such as the Provo area, Salt Lake City, Davis County, and the rural counties. This plan gives rural Utahns a voice in Congress by creating a new fourth district that covers all of the rural areas of the state. It also gives representation to the state’s three major population centers: Ogden/Brigham City (UT‐01), Salt Lake City 28 Johnny L Rural Plan 0.01 ‐0.01 0.02 D 2 (UT‐02), and Provo (UT‐03). The only disadvantage to this map is that it would be difficult for a candidate to campaign in the large rural district. This plan was made purely on trying to provide a fair representation for all. The standard deviation is minimal (0.00‐ to 0.01), and the districts follow relatively reasonable geographic, and culture barriers. As such, this created a donut‐hole 29 Robert Stevens The Robert Plan type of map, with southern salt lake county in the center of the donut, district 1 being north of it and covering Davis, 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 3 Weber, and Morgan counties, and counties up north. District 2 covered western counties, and district three covered eastern counties. This plan divides the Wasatch Front among three districts with the remainder of the state’s population in the 4th district. District 2 is the most urbanized and includes the state’s two largest cities along with their nearest suburban centers. District 3 includes the populous suburbs of southern Salt Lake County and northeastern Utah County along with the population centers of Provo and Orem. District 1 encompasses the rural, but rapidly‐growing communities in southwestern Hennington 30 Jon Hennington Salt Lake County and western Utah County along with the remainder of the Wasatch Front. District 1 also includes Utah’s 0.07 ‐0.06 0.13 D 2 Proposal three major military installations and Camp Williams. The plan attempts to respect all existing city and county boundaries, where practicable, and recognizes areas of common interest within our state. It should be noted that, in order to correct a population imbalance between the 2nd and 3rd Districts, residents of West Jordan City in Salt Lake County residing east of Utah Highway 68 have been included in District 3. As an alternative to my earlier submission (see Hennington Proposal), this Congressional proposal features the ‘donut hole’ approach with District 2 forming the center. Encompassing Northern and Central Salt Lake County, District 2 is, by far, the most urbanized of the districts. Southern Salt Lake County joins neighboring Tooele County to form the northern Hennington population center of District 4 which spans the western half of the state and includes many of our fastest growing 31 Jon Hennington Alternate suburban communities. District 1 contains all of the northern Wasatch Front from Davis County to the Idaho border. 0.07 ‐0.08 0.15 D 2 Proposal Finally, seated in Utah County and spreading south and eastward, is District 3. This plan has the advantage of keeping all but two counties whole. Salt Lake County must be divided in any proposal because of its large population. Also, the very low density areas of eastern Summit County are included in District 2 rather than District 1 in order to keep the populations within the maximum allowed deviation of 0.1% from the target.

Ryan Kelly Final Four district U.S. House plan created with goal of having a central district including Salt Lake and Park City, surrounding the 32 Ryan Kelly 0.03 ‐0.05 0.08 D 3 4 District district with the other three. Population division was main tool used to determine where the lines are drawn. 2010 Final Division of state of Utah into 4 districts. Population distribution and maintaining similar areas from current districts were 33 Ryan Kelly 0.09 ‐0.06 0.15 P 4 Congress Plan main concepts to line placement. Unemployed 34 Floyd Leavitt Pharmacy Tech A division along county lines as far as possible. 0.09 ‐0.10 0.19 P 2 Plan A Congressional 35 Adam Bass Goals: Create three relatively small districts that have both rural and urban, and keep communities of interest together. 0.07 ‐0.05 0.12 P 3 Districts AGB Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total 3 compact 36 Adam Bass Congressional No description. 0.05 ‐0.08 0.13 D 2 districts dave congress Using I 15 as the division point in Salt Lake County and build the remaining districts from there. The biggest weakness it 37 David Rees 0.05 ‐0.05 0.10 D 2 plan 1 that district 4 ends up being very large geographically. This is a simple plan that will generally assure all of the Utah delegation vote with unanimity on Utah issues. This will be the last time we can do this. It also ensures the most important counties are given more representation. I have only used natural boundaries, rivers, lakes, county lines and major roads that create a natural division in neighborhoods. There is a JamesHumphrey 38 James Humphreys balance that ensures all districts are represetative of the entire state, with respect to urban vs rural populations, a division 0.08 ‐0.10 0.18 P 4 s Congressional1 of current resource development and a mix of minority populations in every district. No consideration was given to political affiliation or voting tendency. This map also more closely represents what we have now in divisions for Congessional districts but is much more balenced than our current district maps. Presented by James Humphreys at Ogden, July 13 No 39 Trevor Tidwell No description. 0.02 ‐0.05 0.07 D 2 Gerrymandering 40 Matt Gwyther t No description. 0.05 ‐0.09 0.14 D 2 The primary objective of this plan is to have a Representative to represent rural Utahns and the other 3 in the 3 largest cities of Utah. This remedies the problem of having a chunk of rural land tacked on to a more urban/suburban part of the district. This allows for more focused representation for all 4 Representatives. One drawback is that the largest district covers most of the state geographically. I believe that the common needs of those represented overcomes that drawback. Nathan Urban/Rural 41 The other possible drawback I see is that Salt Lake County is divided up between the 4 districts. I put Bingham 0.00 ‐0.01 0.01 D 3 Rasmussen Split Canyon/Herriman as part of the rural district, as this tends to be a more rural part of Salt Lake County. I extended the district from Utah County into Sandy, Draper, Bluffdale, South Jordan as in my experience they tend to have similar values. The district that includes Ogden was extended down into West Valley, Magna, Kearns and Taylorsville. I think that the urban/suburban county divisions are sufficiently cohesive to create useful and similar districts. Splits Salt Lake County between four districts and Utah County between two districts. District 1 is a northeastern district with population centers in Davis County, Summit County, and eastern SL County. District 2 is a central‐eastern district with population centers in part of Utah County and a small piece of southern SL County. District 3 is a southern Utah district with population centers in Washington County and southwest SL County. District 4 is a north‐northwestern district with 42 Derek Monson Pizza Slice #2 population centers with population centers in Cache County, Weber County, and northwest SL County. The goal was to 0.06 ‐0.06 0.12 P 4 suggest an alternative to my “Pizza Slice #1″ map, while keeping a little more continuity of SL County’s east‐side communities. Strengths include keeping all of southern Utah in one district, most of SL County’s east bench in one district, and giving each district a rural‐urban mix. Weaknesses include splitting Utah County into two parts and an awkward shape for district 4 with northwest SL County and Weber/Cache Counties, but not Davis County. Splits Salt Lake County into four pieces, one in each district. District 1 is northeast Utah and northeast SL County, district 2 is eastern and southern Utah and southeast SL County, district 3 is central‐southwest Utah and southwest SL County, and district 4 is northwest Utah and northwest SL County. The goal (and the strength) was to base each district on one of 43 Derek Monson Pizza Slice #1 0.10 ‐0.08 0.18 P 4 Utah’s non‐Salt Lake population centers (Utah County, Davis County, Weber/Cache County, and Washington County), since mathematically Salt Lake County has to be broken up. A weakness is that it also puts the northeast portion of Utah County in a different district from the rest of Utah County.

Goal is to provide a different take on the “doughnut hole” idea. District 1 (Davis and Morgan Counties plus north Salt Lake County) and district 3 (Utah and Wasatch Counties plus southeast Salt Lake County) are the two doughnut holes. District 2 Double includes southern and eastern Utah and central‐eastern Salt Lake County. District 4 includes nothern Utah, Tooele County, 44 Derek Monson Doughnut‐Hole and southwest Salt Lake County. Strengths include maintaining two compact, mostly urban districts that also have a 0.05 ‐0.05 0.10 P 4 #2 portion of rural areas, and keeping various regions of the state (northern, southern, and eastern Utah), as well as northern Salt Lake County, together in their respective districts. Weaknesses include an awkward shape to district 2, which curves around district 3 on three sides and then slices into Salt Lake County. Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total The goal was to provide a different take on the “doughnut hole” approach. District 1 (doughnut hole #1) is Davis and Morgan Counties and northeast Salt Lake County. District 3 (doughnut hole #2) is Utah and Wasatch Counties and Double southwest Salt Lake County. District 2 is southern and eastern Utah and southeast Salt Lake County. District 4 is northern 45 Derek Monson Doughnut‐Hole 0.06 ‐0.05 0.11 P 4 Utah, Tooele County, and northwest Salt Lake County. The strengths include keeping much, though not all, of rural Utah in #1 one district, all of southern Utah in one district, and basically all of northern Utah in one district, with two districts being rather compact. Weaknesses include an awkward shape in district 2, which borders district 3 on three sides. My goal is to make it conceptually easy on a macro‐geographic scale. Split salt lake county East and West. Extend East and west to state border. District 1 gets northern counties. District 2 gets eastern Salt Lake, then east and south down through North South East 46 Ellis Rygg Carbon, Emery and Grand Counties. District 3 gets most of Utah County and southwest down to St George. District 4 gets 0.01 ‐0.01 0.02 P 2 West western Salt Lake and Utah Counties as well as Tooele County. Weakness: borders between districts may interrupt communities. Donut (West & 47 John Barlow Maintains continuity with current districts as much as possible and creates a diversified urban 4th district. 0.04 ‐0.04 0.08 D 2 So. Davis) This is nearly the same plan as my Plan #2 except that instead of including a lot of sparsely populated areas from northern Utah to fill out District 2, I took a small slice of Davis County to even out the population numbers between Districts 1 and 48 Chris Creer Plan #2b 0.07 ‐0.04 0.11 P 2 2. It would also be possible to leave all of Morgan County in District 1 and just take a little bit more of the southern tip of Davis County to even out the population numbers between Districts 1 and 2. 49 Chris Creer Plan #2 No description. 0.07 ‐0.04 0.11 P 2 50 Chris Creer Plan #1 No description. 0.03 ‐0.07 0.10 D 3 Doughnut Hole Provides one central Salt Lake City district, one northern Utah district, one eastern Utah district, and one western Utah 51 David Wasserman & Three Pizza 0.01 0.00 0.01 D 3 district linking the high‐growth I‐15 corridor. Slices 52 Nick Norris Cololi1 No description. 0.03 ‐0.06 0.09 D 2 To keep like communities together, I’ve created a plan that keeps rural Utah in its own district to keep their voice from being diluted by city people. I’ve also split the main 4 Wasatch front counties (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah) into 53 Ryan Roberts 3Urban1Rural 0.03 ‐0.05 0.08 D 3 reasonable obvious groups of 3. This keeps like communities together much better than trying to split up SL County with portions of rural Utah. Redistricting 54 David Lorenzo No description. 0.07 ‐0.07 0.14 D 3 plan Rural and Urban 55 David Maughan Targeting the city and populous centers as the center of districts, and combining rural areas into one district. 0.05 ‐0.03 0.08 D 4 county districts county Most counties do not wish to be divided into more than one Congressional district. Salt Lake County will be divided, due to 56 David Maughan connectivity the fact that it has more than 1/4 of the state’s population alone. This plan is an attempt to keep the divisions to a 0.02 ‐0.04 0.06 D 3 plan minimum. 57 Gary Hawes Plan 2 Very exact population distribution (within one or two persons). 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 3 second 58 Gary Hawes congressional No description. 0.09 ‐0.09 0.18 D 2 plan urban, desert, 59 Gary Hawes mountain and No description. 0.04 ‐0.04 0.08 D 2 north 60 Gary Hawes garys new plan Creates a northern, mountain, desert and urban district. Only Salt Lake county is broken up. Keeps communities together. 0.02 ‐0.02 0.04 D 3 Senator Michael This is a plan that has all rural together so a rep. in St. George could represent Vernal, Logan, Tooele, and Park City. The 61 Rural&Urban 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 3 Waddoups Wasatch Front is then three districts. The 4Utah plan solves the problem of counties being split into two districts. In fact, only the two largest counties Salt Lake and Utah have more than one district. Utah county only has two districts so that the small western counties can be 62 Leonard Plaizier 4Utah Counties 0.01 ‐0.01 0.02 P 3 connected with Salt Lake. Salt Lake is divided been two districts with a small portion used by the other districts to balance their size. The districts are located in the 4 Utah state corners. This is a fair plan 4 Utah counties. SL and dense 63 Russ Seeley No description. 0.10 ‐0.07 0.17 D 4 and rural This is an effort to keep all of our business operations in one Northern Utah District. It also forms a complete Southern Decentralized 64 Jeff Hinrichs Utah Distirct. District 1 & 4 have no connection with Salt Lake County which is gives more regional factors to issues within 0.08 ‐0.07 0.15 P 2 Congressional these areas of the state. Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total Goal was to keep as many counties intact as possible. The only counties where there would be multiple representation are Davis, Salt Lake and Utah. When I had to break up counties, I tried to keep cities together and I could not tell if that was D Shane Sadler ‐ exactly the case in each one. That might need to be tweaked. I tried to incorporate both Urban and Rural and think that I 65 D Shane Sadler Congressional 0.09 ‐0.06 0.15 P 3 did accomplish this: District 1: Urban – Logan, Ogden; District 2: Urban – Salt Lake City; District 3: Urban – West Valley Plan City; District 4: Urban – Provo/Orem, St George. I do think that it gives a fair representation in each district. Thanks for the opportunity and I will be sending my others as soon as I get a chance to work on them.

The goal of this plan is to provide four federal legislative districts that reflect the varied geographical and political layout of U.S. House the state. You will note that each district has a similar mix of urban, suburban and rural populations. Each district also has 66 Steve Clark 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 2 Districts Plan I a political mixture that roughly reflects the party affiliation characteristics of the state. In short, each district is intended to be a mirror reflection of the overall geopolitical makeup of the state.

This plan is a revision of my previously submitted plans. The objective is to create four geopolitically balanced districts with Steven Clark a mixture of urban, suburban and rural constituencies in each that are reflective of the state’s overall body politic. Above 67 Steve Clark Amended U.S. all, there are no ‘donut holes’ that artificially give any group any sort of unfair advantage over another. The biggest change 0.00 ‐0.01 0.01 P 2 House Districts from my original plan is a reduction in the geographical size of the pink district that will make it logistically easier and less costly for candidates to campaign in.

The goal of this plan is to provide four federal legislative districts that reflect the varied geographical and political layout of Steven Clark US the state. You will note that each district has a similar mix of urban, suburban and rural populations. Each district also has 68 Steven Clark 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 3 House Districts II a political mixture that roughly reflects the party affiliation characteristics of the state. In short, each district is intended to be a mirror reflection of the overall geopolitical makeup of the state.

This plan is very similar to my plans I and II, however I have reconfigured the pink district (eastern) to make it easier for candidates to campaign and put Washington County into a single district. Each district has a good mix of urban, suburban and rural components. The green district is very interesting in that it features a very balanced population between Utah Steven Clark U.S. 69 Steven Clark County and Washington and Iron Counties with a healthy dose of rural in between. It does not have any of those 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 2 House III repugnant ‘donut holes’ or any special safe havens that treat Democrats differently than the rest of us. You will note that Rep. Chaffetz is out of his district 3, but he does not reside inside district 3 now. I fully anticipate that he will be running against Sen. Hatch so this is likely a moot point regardless. I actually prefer this plan to my plans I and II. 70 John Marshall 4 dist congress No description. 0.08 ‐0.07 0.15 D 3 TJ District Plan 71 Tom Jones The goal of this plan is to have as equal as possible representation without regard to politics. 0.08 ‐0.09 0.17 D 3 01 Not sure why the legislative redistricting committee determined that there has to be such a tight tolerance on population Seems 72 Paul Nielson deviation. The state is not populated that way and, while a worthy goal, a 3‐5% tolerance seems more acceptable. Have 0.04 ‐0.07 0.11 D 3 Reasonable fun with this. Congress 73 Chase Clyde Splits Salt Lake County 4 ways in a reasonable way. Creates Urban/Rural district. 0.00 ‐0.01 0.01 P 3 Urban/Rural Mix

4 Congress seats I wanted to minimize the splitting of cities and communities. The cities that have been split are North Salt Lake City 74 Matt Gore (most cities stay (Foxboro area split out but keep with WX area), Sandy (North & Northeast areas split off), and Lehi (HWY 92 & 600 E splits 0.07 ‐0.10 0.17 D 2 together) 1a Lehi). About 90 percent of those cities stay together.

4 Dist. Changes 75 Matt Gore Made to the No description. 0.10 ‐0.05 0.15 D 2 2006 plan

4 Congress seats I wanted to minimize the splitting of cities and communities, and tried to have a mix of rural and city for a typical 76 Matt Gore 0.08 ‐0.10 0.18 P 3 1C representation of the state. The cities that have been split are along major roads or geographical features. Presented by Pres. Waddoups at Glendale, July 20 Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total The goal with this plan is to keep cities and communities together. It still tried to have a mix of rural and city for a typical representation of the state. The populations of some counties require a split as well as a couple of cities is Salt Lake County. The cities that have been split are West Valley City and Sandy City due to their geographical size and large Keeping cities population. West Valley City has been split south of 4100 South which ties into the northern city boundary line of and Taylorsville City. The western split of WVC is about 5600 West throu the area of the future Mountain View Highway. Sandy 77 Matt Gore Communities City has been split off approximately along the southeasterly area. That split is along major roads and a geographical 0.08 ‐0.10 0.18 P 3 together (Mostly feature (Dimple Dell Canyon). With this plan most cities in Salt Lake County stay intact and that includes SLC. Only about together) 1/3 of the population in Salt Lake County is split off. I believe this plan does a better job of minimize the splitting of cities and communities than the ones I have seen. I reviewed most of the city boundaries and did not want to split cities along I‐ 15 because many of them cross I‐15. I have not seen a plan that has minimizes the splitting of cities down to two. So if I did split more than two let me know. 78 Ted Anderson revised1sttry No agenda 0.07 ‐0.08 0.15 D 3 79 Casey Anderson OwenAnder Doughnut hole and current boundaries. 0.09 ‐0.06 0.15 D 3 80 Mike Barber 1 Rural 3 Urban No description. 0.05 ‐0.08 0.13 D 3 Jeremy.Roberts 81 Jeremy Roberts Congressional No description. 0.08 ‐0.07 0.15 P 3 Map Equal Salt Lake 82 Chad This plan fairly equally divides SL County along major roadways. 0.10 ‐0.10 0.20 P 3 County Equal Salt Lake This is an improvement on a previous plan I submitted. All but one district will share SL County, however all districts have 83 Chad 0.09 ‐0.10 0.19 P 3 County 2 mix of Urban, Suburban, and Rural areas. I cleaned up the borders in North Salt Lake to make the map more uniform.

I think the best approach in terms of fairness and simplicity is to attempt to keep the districts as close to the way they are now and use the geographically and historically set county borders. Salt Lake County’s population is large enough for one‐ and‐a‐half districts, so it must be broken up. I think we should also break up Davis County, because there are too many Congressional 84 Cory Hamblin people in the northern part of the state for a single district. I oppose segregating people into specific economic groups. 0.00 0.00 0.00 D 3 County plan I’m more concerned with keeping residents in those zones that they are already used to. I’m not absolute on the border cutoffs at the street level. My intention was to make the district boundaries have the exact number of residents while maintaining smooth lines, however, that is easier said than done.

85 Randy Christensen RC's 1st try 1 Rural, 3 Urban. 0.08 ‐0.06 0.14 D 3 I just tried to find balance of rural and metropolitan areas. This should give them a full perspective of the needs of all the citizens they represent. It should also allow them opportunities to deal with expansion issues. The numbers though close 86 Scott Christenten New Districts 0.03 ‐0.02 0.05 P 3 to equal could be off by more than it represents because it has a combination of census records and voter district boundaries. Basic goals with this district layout was to separate Southern Utah from Northern Utah, and acknowledging that the two most populous counties in the state would be where the “battleground” of districting would occur. Most plans presume that the 4th district would be carved out of SL County, but I took the approach that it would be in southern Utah instead. I started with Salt Lake and Utah Counties each getting a separate district (2nd in SL County, 3rd in Utah County) and then divided the rest of the state between the 1st and 4th districts. To balance the population, I included Provo into the 4th district and small portions of Orem, trying to more or less move uniformly north to balance the 4th district. Moving into St. George 4th Salt Lake County with the 3rd district due to being gobbled up by the 4th district, it essentially took over the southern end 87 Robert Horning 0.06 ‐0.09 0.15 D 2 District of Salt Lake County, forcing the 2nd district into part of Davis County, again trying to more or less move uniformly north within the county to meet the population requirements. This does produce two largely rural districts with two urban districts in the middle, but that also reflects the current population mix of the state as well. I also took into some consideration the requirements for campaigning, as somebody has to simply get around in these districts as well to meet their constituents. That consideration was merely focusing on geographic considerations alone, but compactness requirements should make that self‐evident as a basic requirement. The weakness of this plan is that it is politically untenable, ignoring the location of current politicians in these districts, but perhaps that is a strength? Presented by Robert Horning at Logan, July 13 This is another attempt at working out a districting plan with Davis county kept intact. This plan attempted to keep Box Davis 4th District Elder County together with the rest of the other generally northern Utah counties. The only counties which were broken 88 Robert Horning 0.00 ‐0.01 0.01 P 2 Plan 3 up to balance districts were Salt Lake, Utah, and Cache Counties. This design seems to keep areas more contiguous even with geographical considerations than the previous “Plan 2.” Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total Working with the idea that Davis County needs to stay intact within at least one congressional district, instead working north to include Weber & Cache Counties as well as making rural areas more included with the districts. This map is far Davis 4th District more gerrymandered than I would like, particularly in Summit County, and the “2nd District” in particular is geographically 89 Robert Horning 0.01 ‐0.01 0.02 P 2 Plan 2 spit between to distinct island even if technically they are connected over a mountain range. While it fits the letter of the law for contiguous areas, it doesn’t really feel right to me. Definitely a “pie wedge” type districting plan. The political implications of this plan are interesting too.

This map is based upon the presumption that legislators in Davis County insist upon being in in their own district that encompasses the whole of the county, and that any plan brought forward will not have Davis County split up between Davis County 4th 90 Robert Horning multiple districts. A secondary goal is to avoid having the St. George/Cedar City area combined with Ogden/Brigham 0.01 ‐0.01 0.02 D 3 District City/Logan thinking it is absurd to require a candidate to literally travel to the extreme corners of the state to campaign. This secondary goal didn’t work out very well, but I’ll try again with another attempt.

This plan first is a fair population distribution. It also creates four districts that encompass a rural element, therefore Pinwheel Plan = mandating that elected officials although not necessarily elected from rural areas would be able to empathize with 91 Joni Crane Equitable concerns of rural areas and more strongly consider their plights. The districts are drawn down easily identifiable lines and 0.03 ‐0.02 0.05 P 3 Everywhere provide easy travel access to elected representatives. The district sizes do not unfairly overburden any particular official with overwhelming travel time and expense. Political party analysis has not been done on this map. Presented by Joni Crane at Vernal, July 26 92 Gavin Felix Plan A Includes both a completely urban district, and three urban/rural mix districts. 0.08 ‐0.08 0.16 D 3 93 Gavin Felix Plan BNo description. 0.06 ‐0.07 0.13 D 3 This plan attempts to: divide the state into 4 districts that are as compact as possible, preserves communities of interest, 94 Steven R. Borg 4 Fair Districts 0.03 ‐0.02 0.05 P 3 and keeps as many municipalities intact as possible. Chad Final To provide geographically harmonious districts which tries to minimize dividing rural counties and keep urban communities 95 Chad Smith Congressional 0.01 ‐0.01 0.02 D 2 intact. Plan 2011 This revised plan attempts to keep rural counties intact while including urban areas in all of the districts. I know district 2 is Revised heavily urban, but I did include counties other than Salt Lake. Thus, it is not a true "donut hole" district. Also, I believe that 96 Chad Smith Congressional 0.05 ‐0.05 0.10 P 4 none of the Urban counties should be divided between more than 2 districts. Splitting up Salt Lake County between all 4 Plan districts is not fair to Salt Lake County residents, who do have a diversity of views even if it has liberal leanings. Revised Final This updated plan seeks to silence any who think there is not enough division within Salt Lake County. It keeps urban 97 Chad Smith 0.04 ‐0.06 0.10 P 4 Plan communities intact while not dividing any county between more than 2 districts. Updated I got some great comments on my last attempt and this version corrects most of the issues my last plan had. It still keeps 98 Chad Smith 0.06 ‐0.08 0.14 P 4 Congress Plan communities intact and keeps a variety of locations in each district.

This plan attempts to group as many common interests together as possible. Additionally, no incumbent addresses were used. Salt Lake County is divided into two districts. Southern Salt Lake County is with Tooele and Davis Counties, placing Hill Air Force Base with Dugway and Tooele Army Depot. Tooele and Davis are sometimes considered bedroom communities for Salt Lake County. I attempted to split SL Co along city lines in its two district split. All Utah County is in one district, which also includes most of Wasatch County (Heber), the I‐15 corridor down to and through Cedar City, and Kelli Lundgren ‐ 99 Kelli Lundgren Manti, Price and Castledale. Several Cedar City residents expressed at their Legislative Redistricting Committee public 0.09 ‐0.05 0.14 D 2 U.S. Congress meeting that they have little in common with St. George. Thus, I thought it would be okay to split Iron and Washington counties. Tourist towns of Moab, St. George, Park City (including Northern Wasatch County with homes in Deer Valley and around Jordanelle), along with Logan, Brigham City and Ogden are included in District 1. This keeps Moab with Park City (requested by citizens in Moab). The weakness: District 1′s U‐shape, but I believe a congressman or woman is capable of representing the area’s citizens due to similar stretched congressional boundaries of 2002 to 2012. Presented by Kelli Lundgren at Park City, July 26 US congressional district plan, started with county borders and made adjustments assigning whole neighborhoods to neighboring districts as needed to make the districts the right population. I did adjust also by adding parts of Summit County to the district comprising most of Salt Lake County so as not to dilute the Democrat vote in Utah. It is interesting My adjusted that taking the 4 largest counties out, the rest of the state’s population was not enough for 1 district so I also assigned 100 Bryce Nielsen county border 0.08 ‐0.05 0.13 D 3 some of western Utah county to district 3, one of my goals was to keep groups with similar political affiliation together as plan much as possible. But I also wanted to keep the borders as close to current political boundaries as possible, while avoiding unnecessary curves and areas poking into each other. If it was possible to just draw straight lines dividing the state into 4 regions of equal population I might even like to do that. Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total The Doughnut District 1: Salt Lake City, Millcreek, Murray, Holladay, Taylorsville, West Jordan, South Jordan, Kearns, Herriman & 101 Oakley Gordon Plan (with Bluffdale. District 2: Weber County, Davis County, Magna & West Valley City. District 3: Utah County, Draper, Sandy, 0.09 ‐0.07 0.16 D 3 sprinkles!) White City, Midvale & Cottonwood Heights. District 4: All other counties, Kennecott, and Copperville. Western Slice: Every county on the NV border, plus San Pete, Sevier, Piute, Wayne, Garfield and Kane counties, but without Brigham City. This slice also contains the SW quarter of S.L. County and a small sliver of western Utah county. Northern Food Metaphor 102 Oakley Gordon Slice: Rich, Cache, Weber and Davis counties, plus Brigham City. Eastern Slice: Utah, Morgan, Summit, Wasatch, Duchesne, 0.07 ‐0.05 0.12 D 2 Plan Carbon and Emery counties and every county on the CO border. Donut hole or pepperoni or round food metaphor: The rest of S.L. County. I believe this has the smallest splitting of cities/communities I have seen. My disclaimer is that I am not a fan of “Doughnut” plans. So if there is to be one, I believe this is the fairest one because it keeps communities together. The goal with this plan is to keep counties and communities together. Only three counties are split up. The populations of some counties require a split. I started with county borders and reviewed the city boundaries and made adjustments assigning whole cities/communities to neighboring districts as needed to make the districts the right population. I believe that I have kept the cities together with the exception of two or three. District 1: 100% of Cache, Davis, Morgan, Rich, Weber Counties, and 81% of Summit County. Pros: Counties stay together and no city split. Cons: Summit County is split, but most of the population areas stay intact. Counties and District 2: 67% of Salt Lake County. The reason for district 4 coming up into SL. County the way it does is to follow Communities Taylorsville City boundary and have the right population balance between districts. Only 1/3 is split off. Pros: Only two stay together 103 G4025 cities are split up, but are minor. A small area of West Valley City is split south of 4700 South and west 5600 West. Draper 0.08 ‐0.07 0.15 D 2 (The Fairest City is split down I‐15. Cons: Smallest geographical district with the highest income I assume. District 3: 100% of Carbon, "Doughnut" Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Kane, Piute, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Wasatch, Wayne, Uintah Counties, and Plan) 85% of Utah County and 19% of Summit County. (Roughly east of I‐15 and south of I‐80). Pros: Most Counties stay together and only two have a minor split. No city split. Cons: Large geographical district. Summit County is split, but most of the rural areas adjacent to the Uintah Mountains stay intact. District 4: 100% of Beaver, Box Elder, Iron, Juab, Millard, Tooele, Washington Counties and 33% of Salt Lake County, and 15% of Utah County. (Roughly west of I‐15). Pros: Most Counties stay together and only two have a minor split. Only two cities are split up, but are minor. The southwest area cities of Salt Lake County have only a population of about (335,250) 10,000 less than half of the rest of the district. So the interests of the Salt Lake County cities do not dominate over the rest of the district. Cons: Large geographical district and two counties and cities are split. 104 Brian Yoho Brian Yoho No description. 0.07 ‐0.04 0.11 P 2 105 Bob Bernick bobcong2 No description. 0.05 ‐0.07 0.12 P 3 Richard 106 Utah v1 Keep counties whole where possible and keep the division of major centrs of population to a minimum. 0.09 ‐0.05 0.14 D 3 Livingstone This map was inspired by a plan submitted early in the process, with a few minor tweaks. The original plan had districts that were within one person variance, but divided some communities of interest. I worked to fix this. While the variance is 'East vs. West' 107 SM Nitz higher, I tried to keep communities together, and divide along county lines. For the record, I am the State Senate intern, 0.05 ‐0.06 0.11 P 4 SN I but considering how we've pushed for others to draw maps, I figured I should try, as well. This is a personal map. This definitely is not perfect, but I personally think it's a nice start. Utah 108 Adrian D. Congressional No description. 0.09 ‐0.04 0.13 D 4 District The goal with this plan is to keep cities and communities together. It still tried to have a mix of rural and city for a typical representation of the state. The populations of some counties require a split as well as a couple of cities is Salt Lake Keeping cities County. The cities that have been split are West Valley City and Sandy City due to their geographical size and large and population. West Valley City has been split south of 4100 South which ties into the northern city boundary line of Communities Taylorsville City. The western split of WVC is about 5600 West. Sandy City has been split off approximately along the 109 Matt G. 0.06 ‐0.06 0.12 P 4 together southeasterly area. That split is along major roads and a geographical feature (Dimple Dell Canyon). With this plan most (corrected cities in Salt Lake County stay intact and that includes SLC. Only about 1/3 of the population in Salt Lake County is split off. I version) believe this plan does a better job of minimize the splitting of cities and communities than the ones I have seen. I reviewed most of the city boundaries and did not want to split cities along I‐15 because many of them cross I‐15. I have not seen a plan that has minimizes the splitting of cities down to two. So if I did split more than two let me know. Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total I made some changes to this plan (Chad Smith 'Revised Final Plan') just to refine some areas so that some communities stay together. The first thing I saw was that Draper City was split among three districts. I think some people forget that Draper extends all the way to the Jordan River and that half of the Sun Crest development which is in Draper cross over into Utah Chad Smith Plan County. Now all of Draper is in one district. The area of North Salt Lake I made changes to as well. The west side of the city 110 Matt G. with some (Foxboro area) is divided from the rest of the city by a larger industrial / manufacturing corridor and that area is more part 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 4 changes of the west side of WX City. These west side communities are fairly new with young families and the elementary kids go to the same schools. All of Morgan County is now in one district, and made some changes to North and South Utah County. I made some adjustments to Carbon County so that Wellington is in the same district as Price. Price and Wellington are less than 4 miles apart and it seemed like they should stay together. garysticht 111 Gary Sticht redistricting plan Can we just keep it simple? 0.01 ‐0.02 0.03 D 2 for utah Daniel Richard DanielRichardSm 112 No description. 0.04 ‐0.09 0.13 P 4 Smith ith Michael Jolley 4 113 Michael Jolley Cong District I just wanted one that made sense geographically as much as possible. 0.04 ‐0.05 0.09 P 4 Plan Plan aimed at providing three, compact urban districts along the Wasatch Front, along with one rural district. Designed to minimize splitting counties and communities where possible. Strengths: Rationale division of rural/urban interests, 3 Urban, 1 Rural 114 Samuel Schmidt compactness of 3 of 4 districts, and strong level of combining community of interests. Singular rural district ensures strong 0.09 ‐0.04 0.13 D 3 (Compact) representation on uniquely rural issues. Weaknesses include some splits of counties and communities, and a large rural district. Sen. Reid ‐ This plan attempts to combine both a 'doughnut hole' and 'pizza slice' approach. It attempts to combine both rural and 115 Stuart Reid Congressional 0.06 ‐0.04 0.10 D 3 urban parts in every district. Plan Plan Three proposes a vertical division of the state, again combining urban and rural interests in all but the Salt Lake County district. Salt Lake County is divided east‐and‐west, with a complete district from its east boundary to approximately 27th West. The western‐third of Salt Lake County forms a second district with the western counties from north‐to‐south. JWStaff Utah UCC Congress Utah County is combined with the eastern counties to form a district from north‐to‐south. The fourth district is comprised 116 0.03 ‐0.04 0.07 D 4 Citizen Counsel Plan D of Davis, Weber and adjacent north‐central counties. The western and eastern districts are not as compact, but do join complete, contiguous counties with common interests, such as agriculture, mining, and recreation. These two districts also generally follow the natural geographic boundaries between the two sides of the state and reflect potentially differing regional interests between Utah’s western and eastern counties.

Plan Four is a modified vertical division of the state that includes urban areas in all four districts. Salt Lake County is again divided east‐and‐west, with a complete district running from the eastern boundary toward the west. The western third of Salt Lake County forms a separate district with Tooele and Davis Counties, reflecting common commercial and employment interests, including major military installations. A third district combines Utah County with a southern piece of Salt Lake County and the southwestern counties that have their population centers along the I‐15 corridor, reflecting their common JWStaff Utah UCC Congress 117 economic and transportation interests and the increasingly urban interests of Washington and Iron Counties. The fourth 0.04 ‐0.03 0.07 D 3 Citizen Counsel Plan C district combines the northern tier of counties with counties east of the I‐15 from north‐to‐south. While this district is not very compact, it joins some common interests in agriculture, mining, and recreation. Plan Four, while establishing one particularly large geographical district, accommodates the north‐south directional orientation of main transportation networks in southern Utah, as well as the east‐west road networks in northern Utah. This configuration also presents the advantage of keeping all county boundaries intact, except Salt Lake County, which must be divided.

Plan Two proposes a horizontal division of the state, combining urban and rural interests in all but one district. Salt Lake County is divided east‐and‐west, with a complete district from its east boundary to approximately 27th West. The western‐ third of Salt Lake County forms a second district with Tooele County, southern Davis County, and northern Utah County, JWStaff Utah UCC Congress which all have commercial, employment, educational, and transportation interests in common with Salt Lake County. The 118 0.03 0.03 0.06 D 2 Citizen Counsel Plan B northern district joins the urban counties of Weber and northern Davis with the other northern tier counties from east to west. The southern district joins the remainder of Utah County with the southern tier of counties from east to west. Thus, this plan provides relatively compact and contiguous districts with common interests throughout the state, while reflecting potentially different regional interests between Utah’s northern and southern counties. Percent Deviation SL Co. ID # User Name Title Description Type Notes Split Large Small Total

This is known as the ‘donut plan,’ which includes three urban districts surrounded by a rural district. This plan illustrates the stark reality of Utah’s population distribution. Three‐fourths of Utah’s population is concentrated along the urban areas of the Wasatch Front in Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah counties. This plan largely separates urban and rural interests by concentrating congressional representation and district alignment exactly where the most people reside. Salt Lake County is divided north‐to‐south among three districts, with the majority of the county comprising one district across JWStaff Utah UCC Congress the middle, the north part joining a district with Weber and Davis Counties, and the southern part joining a district with 119 0.04 0.03 0.07 D 3 Citizen Counsel Plan A Utah County. As urbanization along the entire Wasatch Front increases, the kinds of urban issues which have historically been primarily Salt Lake City issues will be increasingly common in each of the Wasatch Front counties. For example, air quality and transportation issues are of particular common interest to all urban areas along the Wasatch Front. The fourth district is comprised of all remaining counties, with largely rural, agricultural, mining, and recreational interests around the state. Accordingly, the three urban districts rate high for compactness and common interests. The surrounding, rural district rates low on compactness, but high on common interests and preservation of county boundaries. Salt Lake City and most of Salt Lake County are contained in one Congressional District. This map attempts to keep cities Salt Lake City Salt Lake City and towns intact, but given the population size, the following splits are proposed: Kearns township is split along 5415 120 Congressional 0.01 ‐0.01 0.02 D 3 Council and Mayor South/Utah State Route 173, Lehi City is split along Interstate 15 into eastern and western portions, and Springville City is Map 2 split into northern and southern portions. Salt Lake City, Tooele County, and most of Summit County are included in one congressional district. (Note: The remainder Salt Lake City of Summit County is included in District 3.) We feel this map meets a common concern of our constituents, which is not to Salt Lake City 121 Congressional split communities of interest. This map attempts to keep communities – counties, cities, and towns – intact. In order to 0.05 ‐0.05 0.10 D 3 Council and Mayor Map 1 balance the population as required, Lehi was split along Interstate 15 – the western half is contained in District 3 and the eastern half is contained in District 4.

Total Pizza 48 Total Doughnut 73 Total 2 Split 43 Total 3 Split 59 Total 4 Split 19