In the year since Utah’s signature audit was released, several voices — including Phil Lyman, Natalie Clawson, and their followers — have claimed that Governor Spencer Cox “didn’t have enough valid signatures” to qualify for the ballot. They say the audit showed some of his signatures were “disqualified.”
But that isn’t what the audit says. In fact, the audit did not disqualify any signatures at all. So the question I’ve been asking for months still stands:
Who disqualified them?
The Audit’s Findings
The Legislative Auditor General’s report reviewed a sample of signatures from several statewide campaigns, including Cox’s. It found that county clerks made some mistakes — a few signatures were accepted that shouldn’t have been, and a few were rejected that should have been accepted.
That’s what an audit is supposed to do: check for accuracy. But the report explicitly says the audit is not part of the formal qualification process. It did not change any candidate’s status. No signatures were “thrown out” because of it. Its purpose was to measure accuracy, not to rewrite history.
In short, the audit found room for improvement — not grounds for disqualification.
How Signature Verification Actually Works
Every candidate who gathers signatures goes through the same process. Signatures are submitted to the county clerks, who check them against voter records. Invalid ones — duplicates, mismatches, or non-registered voters — are rejected at that stage.
That’s normal. It happens to every campaign.
For Governor Cox, roughly 4,800 of about 33,000 signatures were rejected during that initial review, leaving enough valid ones to qualify him for the ballot. Once a candidate passes that threshold, the process ends.
“Rejected” signatures are part of the normal filtering process — not a later disqualification.
The Claims by Lyman and Clawson
Despite the audit’s clear statements, Lyman and Natalie Clawson have continued to assert that Cox’s signatures were “disqualified.” Their posts and campaign materials often use that word — implying a formal decision to invalidate signatures after they had already been accepted.
But they haven’t said who did the disqualifying, when, or under what authority.
There’s no record of the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, the county clerks, or the courts taking any action to revoke Cox’s ballot qualification.
The audit didn’t. The clerks didn’t. The law doesn’t provide for an “after-the-fact” disqualification process.
So again: Who disqualified them?
Long-time party parliamentarian Kirby Glad reviewed the same issue and reached the same conclusion as the audit: no signatures were ever disqualified. In his report to the Utah County Republican Party, Glad explained that the verification process is handled by the Davis County Clerk under contract with the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, and once enough valid signatures are confirmed, the process stops. He noted that while some signatures were rejected during normal verification, there is no record — and no legal mechanism — for retroactively disqualifying any of Governor Cox’s accepted signatures. (source)
The Problem With Vague Claims
Saying signatures were “disqualified” sounds serious — but without specifics, it’s meaningless propaganda.
If someone truly disqualified signatures, that would mean:
- There is an official record or order documenting the action.
- There is a named authority who carried it out.
- There is a legal mechanism that allows such a disqualification.
None of that exists. The audit didn’t name any such process, and the clerks’ normal rejections don’t qualify as “disqualification.”
Without those details, “disqualified” is just a word thrown into the air — not a fact.
Fraudulent Signatures? Another Misleading Claim
Critics also point to “fraudulent” or “fraudulently gathered” signatures. The audit found some irregularities in the signature gathering process — things like signature mismatches or procedural errors by circulators — but it found no evidence of widespread fraud.
Importantly, the audit did not retroactively remove those signatures or declare them invalid. It recommended better training and consistency — not disqualification.
Again, there’s a big difference between “some mistakes were made” and “the candidate was illegitimate.”
Political Fallout and Optics
It’s also worth noting how Lyman’s maneuvering at the state convention turned the signature controversy into spectacle. I personally witnessed many of his non-delegate supporters sit among delegates and begin booing Cox, baiting a reaction. That provoked Cox to lash out at delegates publicly — a moment Lyman likely anticipated. This episode shows how the disqualification narrative is being wielded strategically. How much money has Lyman raised from it? Who is still getting paid to promote it?
It is especially concerning that after all of this controversy, Phil Lyman nearly won the race for Utah GOP state chair. In the 2025 organizing convention, Lyman secured 1,215 votes against incumbent Rob Axson’s 1,340 — just a 125-vote margin — demonstrating how much traction the signature dispute narrative still holds among GOP delegates. But it also shows how much delegate support he lost, as he won at the state convention in his governor’s race with 67.5% (Utah News Dispatch)
The Real Issue: Transparency
The audit did its job. It identified areas where the process could be clearer and more consistent. The real solution isn’t to repeat unfounded claims — it’s to demand transparency.
If anyone truly believes signatures were “disqualified,” they should produce:
- The records showing which signatures,
- The authority who invalidated them, and
- The legal justification for doing so.
Until that happens, the evidence says the opposite: Cox qualified. The audit changed nothing. And no one — not the auditors, not the clerks, not the Lieutenant Governor — disqualified his signatures.
The Bottom Line
The state’s own audit says it didn’t disqualify any signatures. Yet Lyman and Clawson continue to claim that it did.
It’s time for them to answer a simple, factual question — the same one I’ve asked from the start:
Who disqualified them?
Because unless someone can name a real person, process, and record behind that claim, it’s not evidence — it’s just dirty politics.