Connect with us

Utah

Why Prop 4 still haunts Utah politics 8 years later

Published

on

Why Prop 4 still haunts Utah politics 8 years later


The state’s most powerful lawmakers laid bare their true feelings on Friday about the political upheaval caused by Utah’s Proposition 4 redistricting law, saying that it risks permanently upending the legislative system.

Eight years ago the Better Boundaries ballot initiative, or Prop 4, galvanized anti-gerrymandering organizers and led to sharp partisan pushback. On Friday, Utah Senate leadership made it clear the rancor has only intensified.

“It’s chaos,” said Sen. Scott Sandall, R-Tremonton, who chairs the Legislative Redistricting Committee. “This problem that is occurring right now is because the outcome was not what some wanted, so they attacked the process.”

But Prop 4 proponents allege the law’s fallout — including public outcry, a yearslong legal slugfest and a repeal petition — stems, instead, from legislators’ opposition to people placing a check on their authority to decide electoral boundaries.

Advertisement

Understanding where Utah is today, eight years into this fight, requires understanding how it began.

The stakes in Utah’s redistricting battle

Ever since voters approved Prop 4 in 2018 by a margin of less than 1%, the law has split Utah’s public officials. But over the past 18 months, the debate has erupted into what some top Republicans are calling a constitutional crisis.

In July 2024, the Utah Supreme Court flipped constitutional precedent on its head, according to critics. In a unanimous ruling, the GOP-nominated justices prohibited lawmakers from amending ballot initiatives in many circumstances.

“When our Supreme Court ruled that the initiative process had superiority over the statutory process they destroyed the Republic, in my mind,” Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, said. “And that’s what’s caused the chaos.”

Last fall, a district judge eliminated Utah’s 2021 congressional map based on that ruling, declaring the map violated Prop 4’s intent. The judge later rejected lawmakers’ attempt to comply with the law, instead picking a map drawn by plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Advertisement

Now, during the 2026 legislative session, with court cases in flux and candidates on edge ahead of the midterm elections, lawmakers continue to feel the disruption of Prop 4 as it reshapes Utah’s political landscape.

It has been difficult to keep up with the constantly evolving news cycle of late-night rulings, special sessions and court filings. Here are the key events in Utah’s tumultuous, and at times explosive, redistricting battle.

2018: Voters pass Prop 4

In 2017, five years after Utah lawmakers were accused of “cracking” Salt Lake County’s Democratic strongholds into three U.S. House seats, Better Boundaries was created to sponsor a statewide ballot initiative.

The initiative sought to increase transparency and implement guardrails around the once-in-a-decade redistricting process. It would establish an appointed commission to recommend district maps to the Legislature.

While ultimate redistricting authority would remain with lawmakers, Prop 4 required them to vote on recommended maps and for the final map to not “unduly favor” a political party, or else face lawsuits.

Advertisement

In 2018, a majority of voters in Salt Lake, Summit, Carbon and Grand counties — driven to the polls at least in part by other initiatives on the ballot that year, including legalizing medical marijuana and expanding Medicaid — approved of Prop 4, making it law.

2020: Prop 4 gets amended

Before the 2020 legislative session, Better Boundaries approached lawmakers with concerns that Prop 4 in its original form could invite constitutional challenges by interfering with legislators’ redistricting authority.

After more than a year of negotiations, lawmakers and ballot initiative sponsors held a press conference to champion what both sides called a compromise solution, which later passed both chambers with nearly total bipartisan support.

The bill reforming Prop 4, SB200, kept the seven-member redistricting commission, but removed the requirement for lawmakers to accept or reject its proposals, and to provide an explanation for their decision.

The bill also replaced Prop 4’s list of redistricting criteria — forbidding districts that protect incumbents and requiring districts to minimize municipal splits — with internal rules to avoid “purposeful or undue favoring” of parties.

Advertisement

2021: Legislature passes new map

The first round of Utah’s new redistricting commission did not go as smoothly as some had hoped. Commission member former Rep. Rob Bishop abruptly resigned in October 2021, arguing that the process was biased against rural Utah.

In November, the state Legislature’s redistricting committee largely dismissed three congressional maps drafted by the commission, which claimed it had followed a nonpartisan process, though one map used a tool with partisan data.

The Legislature ultimately endorsed a congressional map combining urban and rural representation and splitting Salt Lake County between four districts. Cox signed the map into law despite what he labeled a “partisan bend.”

Better Boundaries immediately threatened possible legal challenges or a new ballot initiative. After years of pushing for what the group characterized as fairer congressional representation, Utah appeared to have less competitive districts than before.

2022: Legislature is sued by special interest groups

In 2022, the League of Women Voters Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and Millcreek residents, sued lawmakers for allegedly violating the state Constitution by ignoring voters’ right to initiate legislation and to rein in gerrymandering.

Advertisement

The Legislature grounded its defense in Utah’s Constitution, which states, “the Legislature shall divide the state into congressional … districts.” But lawmakers were about to receive an earthshaking message from Utah’s top court.

2024: Supreme Court shifts status quo

In the summer of 2024, the Supreme Court responded to an appeal of the lawsuit with a new interpretation of the state Constitution: ballot initiatives altering the structure of government would, from now on, be a wholly new class of laws.

The ruling prohibited lawmakers from amending initiatives that reform government unless they satisfied the highest legal standard of strict scrutiny, allowing changes only to address a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way possible.

2024: Failed constitutional amendment

Shocked by the Supreme Court’s ruling, legislative leadership met for a special session to draft a constitutional amendment that would clarify the Legislature’s ability to change or repeal ballot initiatives after they are approved by voters.

But, in a decision upheld by the Supreme Court, Gibson ruled that the so-called Amendment D was void because lawmakers did not meet the standard for advertising the amendment in newspapers and the ballot language was unclear.

Advertisement

2025: Judge throws out 2021 map

In an August 2025 ruling — months after a self-imposed deadline — 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that SB200 “unconstitutionally impaired” Prop 4 and that the Legislature’s 2021 congressional map needed to be thrown out.

Gibson directed the Legislature to approve a remedial map in line with Prop 4. Working on a truncated timeline, lawmakers requested public feedback, and approved a map including two more competitive, but still Republican-leaning seats.

2025: Gibson chooses plaintiffs’ map

In a bombshell decision, delivered on Nov. 10, just minutes before a midnight deadline requested by Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, Gibson rejected the Legislature’s offering as “an extreme partisan outlier” that failed to meet Prop 4 standards.

Up against an election timeline, Gibson said she felt she had no choice but to pick a map submitted by the plaintiffs. Utah’s new congressional map, Gibson said, should have a “Democratic-leaning district anchored in the northern portion of Salt Lake.”

2025: Legislature promises to appeal

The ruling ignited a Republican firestorm. Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, vowed to repeal it, GOP lawmakers threatened impeachment and conservatives hurled the accusation of gerrymandering right back at Gibson.

Advertisement

Cox backed the Legislature, supporting an appeal and suggesting that Gibson’s delayed redistricting decision had limited the ability “for justice to fairly play out.” This was just the beginning of the Republicans’ attempt to counter the ruling.

2026: Challenge from U.S. Reps

On Monday, U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens and Celeste Maloy of Utah joined 11 local leaders in filing a federal lawsuit alleging the state’s court-ordered congressional map violates the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The federal lawsuit marks just the latest effort to undo Gibson’s decision. Her ruling so far has prompted a partial appeal by the Legislature — as they are still waiting for Gibson to issue her final judgment — and a GOP initiative to repeal Prop 4 entirely.

“Whether by ballot initiative, litigation, or by supporting judicial reform, we will continue to fight for the rights of all Utahns by strengthening our constitutional republic,” Utah Republican Party chair Rob Axson said in a statement.

Beyond the backlash, Gibson’s ruling has clear political implications. By reducing Utah’s GOP-leaning districts from four to three, it has become unclear which districts Owens, Maloy or Reps. Blake Moore or Mike Kennedy will choose to run in.

Advertisement

2025-26: Democratic candidates see opportunity

Gibson’s map creates a Salt Lake City seat where Kamala Harris won by 23 percentage points in 2024. The district is home to 41% of the state’s actively registered Democrats and just 15% of the state’s registered Republicans.

At least seven Democratic candidates, including two state lawmakers, have announced their intention to run for the new 1st congressional district, which they see as an unprecedented chance to provide Democratic representation for the state.

Over 52% of actively registered Utah voters are Republican, less than 14% are Democrats and roughly 28% are unaffiliated. The other 6% are split among smaller parties. In the 2024 election, Trump won just under 60% of Utah’s vote, while Harris won 38%.

Looking ahead: Will Prop 4 be repealed?

In an effort to counter Gibson’s ruling using all means possible, Axson launched a ballot initiative of his own, with the support of Sen. Mike Lee and Attorney General Derek Brown, to repeal Prop 4.

The party recruited hundreds of volunteers and paid employees from around the country to try to get 141,000 signatures by Feb. 15 to put Prop 4 on the ballot again. As of Friday, the Lieutenant Governor’s Office had recorded over 76,000 valid signatures.

Advertisement

National GOP weighs in

The Beehive State’s ballot initiative has drawn attention from the highest levels of GOP politics. President Donald Trump endorsed the effort in January, after his son encouraged people to sign up to become paid signature gatherers in October.

The initiative also attracted GOP get-out-the-vote guru Scott Presler for an eight-day signature gathering blitz, and Turning Point Action, which is bringing its “super chaser” door-knocking strategy to Utah for the first time to repeal Prop 4.

Repeal effort boils over

As election season nears, Prop 4 has brought out the worst of Utah partisanship. Multiple police reports have been filed alleging assault and aggression toward GOP signature gatherers, resulting in at least several dozen lost signatures.

Many complaints have also been made by Utah voters who report signature gathers using misleading tactics to score signatures. Some gatherers have characterized the initiative as an effort to “stop gerrymandering” or “remove the crooked judge.”

Meanwhile, Better Boundaries has launched a signature removal campaign, mailing letters to thousands of voters who signed what the group calls “a pro-gerrymandering petition” and providing them with forms to remove their names.

Advertisement

A criminal investigation is now underway after the GOP’s political issues committee, Utahns for Representative Government, flagged potential fraud by its gatherers, with one county clerk disqualifying roughly 300 signatures, KSL reported.

Is the repeal popular?

A Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll conducted in January found 44% of Utah voters don’t know whether they support the repeal effort. The rest of voters are split, with 26% supporting the proposition and 29% opposing it.

On Friday, Utah Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, said she shared some concerns about a judge choosing electoral boundaries without legislative input. But many Utah voters have felt this way about the Legislature’s actions, she pointed out.

Utah is not unique in trying to implement a redistricting commission. Too often, Escamilla said, arguments made in favor of unfettered legislative control over redistricting are only supported by members of states’ dominant political party.

“We feel totally excluded from that process, and that hurts our districts that we represent, and I hope that’s also acknowledged,” Escamilla said.

Advertisement

“That’s also part of this exercise, that you realize human nature runs a lot of the stuff that’s happening.”



Source link

Utah

Proposed Utah bill takes aim at hidden rental fees

Published

on

Proposed Utah bill takes aim at hidden rental fees


SALT LAKE CITY — After spending a year living out of her car, Rachel Ortiz said she does everything she can to avoid going back to that life. And that includes keeping a very tight budget.

“Unexpected things come up and I’m able to pay them thankfully, but a lot of people aren’t able to do that,” Ortiz said.

But her carefully planned budget blew up on her when her Salt Lake City apartment turned out to be not as affordable as advertised.

The listed rent price for her place was $869. But each month, Ortiz pays nearly a hundred dollars more to live there – not including utilities.

Advertisement

The reason? Hidden rental fees.

“It’s hard to afford a place nowadays with the rent, and if the inflation is going up,” she said.

The monthly add-ons driving up rent

Ortiz’s monthly fees include $10 for pest control. Another $14 goes to her place’s liability waiver program — an alternative to the required renter’s insurance. And with no adjacent street parking available, she also must pay $25 for parking: covered or uncovered. On top of those fees, there’s a $16 “real estate tax” for her share of the complex’s property taxes.

“I mean, they want to charge you separate for every little thing,” Ortiz said.

She also shares the costs of landscaping, maintenance, snow removal, security and utility bills for her place’s common areas. That fee varies, but last month it came to $32.

Advertisement

“I go to pay this amount, and then you tell me it’s this amount,” she said. “And I have this amount for the rent.”

Fees renters report paying nationwide

Ortiz isn’t alone in having to tackle monthly rent inflated by hidden rental fees. Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars on rental fees every year, according to a National Consumer Law Center study. That same study identified 27 distinct types of fees renters are paying in addition to their rent.

Those include a fee for having a guest over. Some renters pay an additional fee for the landlord to process their rent payments. Some pay for mandatory trash pick-up or valet service even though they want to take their garbage to the dumpster on their own. Some tenants report having to pay fees to receive packages or to get their mail sorted.

What current law protects renters

Since 2021, landlords in Utah have been required to disclose all fees before taking an application fee.

“The tenants, when they are touring those apartment communities, the law is that they have to disclose all the fees,” said Derek Seal of the Utah Rental Housing Association – a leading trade association for landlords, property managers and others linked to the rental housing industry. “We want people and tenants to be able to make informed decisions.”

Advertisement

Seal says the current law already prevents a landlord from charging a fee that wasn’t disclosed before the renter signed the lease. On the flip side, if a fee was disclosed in the lease – he says renters really don’t have room to complain.

“They have a responsibility to understand the agreement … that they’re getting into,” he said.

What HB29 would change

But now, HB29 aims to require fee disclosure well before a prospective tenant sees an agreement. It wants it to happen in the advertising.

“It’s setting a standard,” said the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Tyler Clancy, R-Provo. “We’re making sure that they (consumers) have an expectation that the marketplace is being honest and transparent.”

HB29 bans hidden rental fees by requiring a listing or an advertisement for a rental to disclose the total price.

Advertisement

“When you’re not being upfront about your price, that could be anti-competitive in nature because you’re not really advertising your product,” Clancy said. “Setting an expectation that families can know if something fits into their budget or not, I think that’s a reasonable thing.”

“The extra fees then should be baked into the price,” said Katie Hass, who leads Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection — which will enforce HB29 if it passes.


They have a responsibility to understand the agreement … that they’re getting into.

–Derek Seal, Utah Rental Housing Association


She says the listed rental price must reflect the real price a tenant will have to pay to live there, excluding personal utilities. And that price, she said, cannot be a range that depends on variable or seasonal fees.

“You (landlords) get to set your own prices,” she said. “You just have to be truthful what’s included in that price and what’s optional at the end of the transaction.”

Advertisement

Federal scrutiny and Greystar’s response

At least eleven other states have similar laws about disclosing hidden rental fees in listings or ads. And in December, the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Colorado reached a $24 million settlement with rental housing giant Greystar over allegations it deceived renters with hidden fees.

“These little fees, at the end, they create a bitterness to our economy that we don’t want here in Utah,” Hass said.

KSL reached out to Greystar about the settlement, who pointed us to their Dec. 2, 2025 statement that reads in part, “The agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing, and Greystar continues to maintain, as it has from the start of this matter, that its advertising has always been transparent, fair, and fully consistent with the longstanding industrywide practice of advertising base rent to potential residents.”

In that same statement, Greystar also says the agreement clarifies the FTC’s position “that federal law requires displaying the Total Monthly Leasing Price, including base rent and all mandatory fees, when advertising housing for rent.”

One renter’s reaction as ownership changes

As for Rachel Ortiz, she does feel bitterness toward all the fees she has to pay on top of her rent.

Advertisement

“It’s become like really greedy,” she lamented. “They start thinking with this (pointing to her head) and stop thinking with this (tapping her heart).”

She just recently learned her home has been bought out by Greystar. She now hopes her new landlord will be more transparent.

“It’s just too much,” she said.

What renters can do right now

If passed, HB29 would not take effect until July 1, 2026.

As a renter, the best thing you can do is, before touring a place, contact the landlord and request a full breakdown of all monthly costs you’re expected to pay, as well as any one-time fees, such as a lease initiation fee. And it doesn’t hurt to try to negotiate. Ask whether they’ll consider waiving a fee or maybe lowering the rent to offset the fee costs.

Advertisement

Derek Seal said the Utah Rental Housing Association maintains a fund that reimburses application fees for renters who did not receive full disclosure when they applied. You can apply on their webpage.

The Key Takeaways for this article were generated with the assistance of large language models and reviewed by our editorial team. The article, itself, is solely human-written.



Source link

Continue Reading

Utah

A battle over public use of paths into a northern Utah mountain escalates

Published

on

A battle over public use of paths into a northern Utah mountain escalates


Clarkston • Curtis Godfrey has spent his entire 72 years in Clarkston, a small northern Utah farming town of about 750 people, tucked by the western slopes of Clarkston Mountain.

As a boy, Godfrey said he often roamed the mountain trails on horseback and hiked through Winter Canyon, a rugged landscape familiar to generations of families in his hometown.

Over the years, he returned with his children — and later with Boy Scout troops — clearing brush and helping maintain the narrow paths that wind up the mountain’s steep slopes.

“My first few times going up there were always on a horse. We’d have them shuttling the ponies and the first time I went up, I was like 10, 12 years old, and I was bareback on one of those,” Godfrey said, laughing at the memory. “It was just me, my brother, and some friends.”

Advertisement

The mountains form the western edge of Cache Valley along the Utah–Idaho border, part of the Malad Range and crowned by the 8,200-foot Gunsight Peak. The ridge is a patchwork of U.S. Forest Service land and private parcels.

But access to those mountains has become the center of a legal battle after a private landowner started blocking off access to paths that lead into the foothills.

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) “No trespassing” signs, a surveillance camera and a gate across the road in Winter Canyon near Clarkston on Friday, Feb. 6, 2026.

Scott Shriber, who owns an 800-acre ranch at the base of the ridge near Gunsight Peak, says the routes now in question are private trails crossing his land, not public county roads.

He put up “No trespassing” signs, cameras and fencing around his property — and the paths leading into the mountains.

Advertisement

However, Godfrey and other residents say for decades, the paths have been used to access public lands on Clarkston Mountain — through Winter Canyon, Elbow Canyon, Green Canyon, Old Canyon and New Quigley Canyon.

(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)

Cache County Executive George Daines said the dispute reflects a broader tension playing out across Utah, where long-standing recreational use is increasingly colliding with changing land ownership and shifting interpretations of public access law.

How the case is resolved, he said, could influence how Cache County — and other communities across the state — handle similar conflicts in the future.

“It’s an ongoing problem all up and down the state,” Daines said. “Landowner buys land that’s on the foothills of the mountains and wants to restrain citizens from going through the foothills to the mountains that are public.”

Advertisement

Tensions flare in Winter Canyon

The dispute has turned into dueling lawsuits in the Utah’s First District Court in Logan.

In 2024, Shriber and his company, Winter Canyon Ranch LLC, sued Cache County over the contested routes.

In response, a group of residents formed Clarkston Mountain Conservation, a nonprofit advocating for continued public access, and filed a separate suit against the landowner alongside BlueRibbon Coalition, an Idaho-based national nonprofit that pushes for recreational access to public lands.

The debate escalated in November, when a BlueRibbon Coalition member riding a dirt bike along the path leading into Winter Canyon was stopped by Shriber and three other men.

Shriber is seen in a video with a gun strapped to his chest as he spoke to the man. Both Shriber and the man called the Cache County Sheriff’s Office, according to a probable cause statement. Shriber was arrested on suspicion of unlawful detention, but no charges appear in court records.

Advertisement

The man recorded the encounter and provided the video to the BlueRibbon Coalition, which provided it to The Salt Lake Tribune with the faces blurred.

In December, Cache County Sheriff Chad Jensen said in a statement that motorized vehicles are not permitted on the routes, and access is allowed only by walking, hiking, biking or horseback while litigation is ongoing.

“Please note that any movement off the designated roads may be considered trespassing,” Jensen said. “We do not want a violent incident due to a trespassing issue.”

Daines, the county executive, said the question of whether — and how — the routes are open to the public during the litigation has caused confusion on both sides, and the issue will likely head back to court for clarification.

Advertisement

A dispute over access

If the routes are blocked off by the ranch, BlueRibbon Executive Director Ben Burr said, public access into the mountain would be cut off.

“If he succeeds at this, he will be land-locking the public almost entirely out of high-value recreation public land that’s otherwise owned by the Forest Service and should be there, available for all of us to go use and enjoy,” Burr said. “We won’t be able to because we can no longer use the long-standing county roads that have been getting us up there for forever.”

Since the 1860s, Burr said, settlers and residents have accessed the slopes through the contested routes for gathering wood, livestock grazing, hunting and travel. Over time, he said, the paths were also used for recreation, including dirt bikes and ATVs.

“Some of these roads were there before the private property deeds were even created,” Burr said. “The community there has been using those trails continuously since they’ve been settled.”

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) “No trespassing” signs and fencing in New Quigley Canyon near Clarkston on Friday, Feb. 6, 2026.

Advertisement

Until 2023, the private land on the mountain was held by families who had owned it for generations, some dating back before 1900, according to Winter Canyon Ranch’s complaint.

That year, the complaint says, Shriber purchased several adjacent parcels near Gunsight Peak, established Winter Canyon Ranch, and became the primary private landowner, holding seven parcels.

Shriber’s attorney, Bruce Baird, said the disputed routes were never legal public roads.

“There’s a state statute that says if the public has used a road for 10 continuous years, it’s dedicated as a highway,” Baird said. “There’s no evidence that the public has used these trails as a road, basically at all.”

Baird said that while residents may have used the routes for hiking, horseback riding and dirt biking, that kind of use doesn’t qualify the paths as public “highways” under Utah law.

Advertisement

He said the statute applies to roads used for standard vehicle travel, not narrow trails used primarily for recreation.

Residents and advocacy groups counter that the routes have long been mapped and labeled by the county as public roads, which Burr said is reflected in the warranty deed noting the sale excluded county roads.

Decades of continuous use, he said, have created public rights-of-way under Utah law.

Ben Burt, who has lived in Clarkston for more than a decade, said he respects Shriber’s rights as a property owner but believes the trails should remain open to the public.

Burt said many live in rural areas “because we care about our property.”

Advertisement

“We want to have a say about our property. So we understand that this guy wants to be able to develop on his property,” Burt said. “It’s not right for them to be able to cut off complete access to that federal land. That’s the difference.”

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Dueling lawsuits over trail access into Clarkston Mountain could influence similar disputes across the state, Cache County’s top executive says.

For many in Cache Valley, Burt said, access to trails in their own backyard is part of the lifestyle that draws them to the area.

Godfrey, the Clarkston resident who grew up with the trails, said protecting access isn’t just about recreation — it’s about preserving decades of family tradition. The trails carry memories of childhood horseback rides, hunting trips, scouting outings and long summer hikes — experiences he hopes to share with his grandchildren.

“I have a bunch of grandkids. They’re getting older, too, but I haven’t had them up there, but I want to; I want them to be able to go,” he said. “That’s one of my concerns, is the things that I’ve enjoyed growing up, and the scouting and taking my family up there, if he gets his way, we won’t be able to do that.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Utah

BYU football player charged with rape in southern Utah case

Published

on

BYU football player charged with rape in southern Utah case


Parker Trent Kingston, 21, is currently being held at the Washington County jail without bail.

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) BYU Cougars wide receiver Parker Kingston (11) runs the ball as BYU hosts TCU, NCAA football in Provo on Saturday, Nov. 15, 2025.

A Brigham Young University football standout has been arrested and is being charged with rape stemming from allegations in southern Utah.

Parker Trent Kingston, 21, will face a first-degree felony rape charge, according to a statement posted online Wednesday by the Washington County Attorney’s Office.

According to the statement, a then-20-year-old woman told officers at a southern Utah hospital that she had been sexually assaulted by Kingston on Feb. 23, 2025, in St. George.

Advertisement

Detectives with the St. George Police Department, the statement says, gathered evidence and spoke to “other witnesses.”

Kingston is now in custody, being held at the Washington County jail without bail. Jail records confirm that. But charges against Kingston have not officially shown up in the court system as of Wednesday evening.

The county attorney’s office could not be immediately reached Wednesday after business hours.

The office’s statement says Kingston has an initial appearance set in court for Friday at 1:30 p.m.

“The Washington County Attorney’s Office takes allegations of sexual assault seriously,” the statement adds. It also asks any members of the public with information to call 435-301-7100.

Advertisement

Kingston is a senior wide receiver for the BYU Cougars. The school also confirmed the arrest.

“BYU became aware today of the arrest of Parker Kingston,” BYU said in a statement. “The university takes any allegation very seriously, and will cooperate with law enforcement. Due to federal and university privacy laws and practices for students, the university will not be able to provide additional comment.”

The charges against Kingston come less than a year after BYU’s team was rocked by allegations against its former quarterback.

Jake Retzlaff was accused of sex assault in a civil lawsuit. That case was later dismissed after Retzlaff and the woman who filed the suit came to a resolution.

But the allegations led to Retzlaff leaving the team, as he was facing a seven-game suspension from the university for breaking the school’s Honor Code. BYU, owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has strict rules that prohibit, among other things, premarital sex.

Advertisement

Retzlaff later transferred for a spot on the roster at Tulane.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending