Utah County holds wide public work session on election verification, legal limits on post‑election data access highlighted

Commissioners at the Utah County Commission meeting on Nov. 8 convened an extended work session to discuss election verification and whether county officials can conduct post‑election statistical analyses of detailed voting data.

Commissioner Bill Lee said he had sought additional election data during the board of canvassers process and that the county subsequently voted to issue an RFP for election verification. Lee described two major hurdles: legal limits on access to ballots and related election returns after canvass, and the technical need for ballot‑level exports to perform meaningful statistical anomaly detection.

Elections staff and counsel told the commission that Utah statute and recent case law treat ballots and “election returns” as records governed by the Government Records Management Act (GRAMA) and by the election code, which prescribes preservation of election materials for 22 months and then destruction “without opening or examining.” The clerk’s office explained that while summary reports presented at canvass are public and may be analyzed, the cast vote record (CVR) — the ballot‑level export statisticians require — is treated analogously to ballots and therefore is not routinely disclosed after the canvass period. County counsel said that internal access during the canvass may be legally permissible, but post‑canvass analysis faces legal uncertainty and would likely require legislative clarification or a court ruling.

Cindy Butler, who presented the statistical approach, said anomaly detection tools such as control charts require a full ballot‑level export to flag patterns that warrant local investigation; she emphasized these tools “are not a silver bullet” but can point auditors to precincts or batches for closer review.

Members of the public filled the meeting’s public comment period and on Zoom, urging greater transparency. Speakers raised allegations about campaign activity by an elections deputy and concerns over signature verification, vote‑by‑mail, and machine reliability. Tiffany Barker alleged that a deputy election officer who can access the election office was also running campaigns; county staff noted public comment does not allow responses during the session. Several commenters called for releasing CVRs or restoring precinct‑level, in‑person paper voting as ways to restore public confidence.

The commission and elections staff outlined next steps: (1) pursue internal options to perform more detailed canvass‑period review where legally permissible; (2) seek legislative updates to the election code and GRAMA to clarify what data can be accessed and when; and (3) continue preparing for the upcoming general election with fuller board‑of‑canvass involvement.

The work session concluded after public comment; commissioners committed to moving forward on procedural and legislative options to allow more robust verification while protecting statutory privacy constraints.