Kirby Glad, reported to Utah Country GOP central committee members after speaking to many knowledgeable people regarding the election process, even reading the statutes himself. Kirby is a registered parliamentarian and somebody who both knows the process and insists people stick to it.
The central committee happened on September 14th and after over 3 hours several resolutions were made to discredit current governor and Republican party nominee, Gov. Spencer Cox. This was also to boost convention winner, Phil Lyman, who lost the primary to Gov. Cox. Sec. Glad had earlier reminded committee members that it violated the county bylaws to publicly support the non-party candidate. Several members wore shirts publicly supporting Lyman and have been very public about their support. Glad told them that they had to option to resign.
Report on Resolutions
Sec. Glad first reported that
In accordance with the motion adopted by the Central Committee this message was sent yesterday to all members of the State Central Committee:
That as a body we request in writing, within the next three days, to each state central committee member, a demand for an emergency state central committee meeting with agenda items as follows:
“That the signature ballot candidates not be recognized as party nominees until and unless signatures are verified by an independent third party, that the candidates are given immediate and ongoing access to view and verify signatures, that any convention candidates who received at least 60% of the delegate votes at state convention be immediately recognized as party ballot candidates, as per Utah Constitution.”
This message has created quite a bit of discussion among the SCC members. If I were to summarize the current thread the discussion is about getting legal advice on what the party can do at this point.
Also in accordance with a motion adopted by the body I sent this message to Spencer Cox:
The Utah County Republican Central Committee kindly and politely request that as a matter of moral principle, personal integrity and good sportsmanship, Spencer Cox and all candidates who did not win 60% of the delegate vote at the state convention publish to the citizens the names of all signatories received by required date to be on the primary ballot, to be verified by citizens and state convention winners immediately, and give access to view the signatures to the candidates, immediately.
I’m working on getting the emails for all the candidates who did not win 60% of the delegate vote and will be sending the same message.
Report on Research
Sec. Glad later reported after spending much time researching the process,
After the calls for disclosure of signature and signatories, and observing a great deal of concern about the signature process in our Central Committee meeting, I did some research by directly making phone calls, reviewing documents, reading statutes, and asking question. I personally spoke with several staff members in the state elections department, the Davis County Clerk, the State GRAMA Ombudsman, the State Auditor, the Utah County elections office, and others.
Some things I learned really surprised me. Here is what I have gathered so far in doing some research on this issue.
- All signature packets for federal, state, and multi-county races (including the race for governor) are turned in to, and verified by, the Davis County clerk, by contract with the LTG office since 2016. The Lt. Gov office does not even touch the petitions until after the verification process. The verification is a manual process where an employe (usually temporary or seasonal) with brief training, manually looks up each name and compares the petition signature against a database of signatures collected by the state, such as from the voter registration form, driver’s license, and other sources. The verifier then makes a subjective decision if the signature is substantially similar to other signatures on file. This process costs around $10,000 for 28,000 signatures which is not charged to the candidate.
- The proper number of verified signatures for Spencer Cox (28,006) were verified several weeks before the deadline. The Davis County Clerk oversaw the verification (I spoke with him directly) and he provided this report to the Lt Gov office, who then certified Spencer Cox as a primary candidate. By the way, 32,883 signatures for Cox were examined, and 4,877 signatures were rejected. There were additional hundreds of signatures that were not verified because they stop the process as soon as enough signatures are verified. The signatures were submitted early enough that the campaign had plenty of time to gather more signatures, if needed, before the deadline.
- When fraud is evident, such as a full page of rejected signatures (which might indicate that a teenage signature collector, who is paid by the number of signatures maybe took a short cut by signing the entire page) these cases are referred to the Attorney General for investigation and possible prosecution. The Lt Gov office will not have any records about this investigation.
- The legislature has determined in statute 63G-2 what information can and cannot be released in Government Records Access and Management statutes (GRAMA). GRAMA requests for records go through the appointed Records Officer for the agency, and their primary duty is to follow the law. The Governor does not have the authority to override this process. The appeals process is to the Chief Administrative Officer for the agency. The next appeal is to the State Records Committee. And then to District Court. I learned this by talking to the State GRAMA Ombudsman. So appeals or demands to the governor to release the names will not make any difference as the governor has no authority in the release of records.
- ANY candidate or voter can already obtain a list of everyone who signed a candidate petition, minus the ones redacted for privacy (as provided in statute 63G-2-305.5 (1)) by filing a GRAMA request and paying $50. Several such lists have been provided.
- ANY candidate or voter can already view the actual signatures (not take pictures or get a copy again for privacy reasons) but a government employee has to go through the physical sheets of paper, identify one by one which voters have marked their records as withheld, and then such names and signatures have to be covered up before the sheet can be viewed. You only have to file a GRAMA request, and pay for the labor to redact the privacy signatures. The state does not do this for free. To go through the approximately 32,000 Cox signatures and look each one up and block out the ones that are private would take about 533 hours. If the cost is $25 per hour (just my guess) you can do the math. No one has ever formally requested an exact quote. Because why would you? You can’t view the state database of signatures – that is protected data – so you would have nothing to compare against.
- There is a legal avenue to challenge the signatures of any candidate. Utah Code 20A-9-202(5)(a) states: “A declaration of candidacy filed under this section is valid unless a written objection is filed with the clerk or lieutenant governor before 5 p.m. on the last business day that is at least 10 days before [the first Wednesday after the fourth Saturday in April.” No objections were timely filed and therefore the candidacy of Cox is legally valid.
- Utah Code 20A-5-409 that the candidates for the general election must be certified to the county clerks by August 31. This is to allow printing of ballots and other preparations. There are no changed allowed to the ballot after this time. Even if a candidate dies after that date it is too late to get another name on the ballot.
It is apparent to me that we are way past the deadline for challenging signatures, and past the deadline for making changes to the ballot. Even if there is a way to change the candidate it is too late to make changes to the ballot. If we don’t like the laws we can advocate to change them, but this the situation as it stands now.
It is also apparent that the law should be changed so that the public has the same access to records of signers of candidate petitions as it does to signatures on initiations and referendums, which as I understand, is full access to the entire list and also to the signatures. Basically, you should waive your privacy for signing such a petition, if that is your choice. The law on candidate petition signatures is out of step.
Thanks,
Kirby
Other News
SLGOP Chair Chris Null has announced that the county party will support county candidates that won at convention, saying
“Salt Lake County Republican Party bylaws Article X Section 5. “If a nominee is selected, the Party shall support and endorse the Party’s nominee elected at convention.”
I will not break that promise. I fight for the party, the caucus convention system, and the voice of the members through the actions of the delegates regardless of who they select. I will not second guess or criticize the final decision of the delegates after all the effort they have made.”
Chris said that this does not apply to state candidates, such as the governor’s race. These bylaws were never updated after SB54 was passed in 2014, allowing for a signature path to the ballot. The Utah GOP challenged the law in court, putting the party in about $300k in debt. The law was upheld through every appeal.