Residents press county commission for 2020 election data review; commissioners approve resolution and several agenda items

At a lengthy work session, national data analyst Jeff O’Donnell presented an analysis alleging irregularities in how 2020 election data were reported and how voter registrations were maintained. O’Donnell told the Utah County Commission he and collaborators had found patterns they said warrant a data examination—specifically, a request for cast vote records and complete voter roll snapshots as of election day and a digital review to focus any further auditing.

Representative Phil Lyman, a member of the Utah legislature who attended and spoke, said he supports a state‑level audit framework and has introduced legislation to remove the mandatory mail‑ballot requirement introduced during the COVID‑era emergency, and he urged independent auditing as a way to rebuild public confidence.

Multiple commissioners questioned the presenters about the feasibility of the requests under Utah law. County Clerk Josh Daniels told the commission the clerk’s office is open to audits and is pursuing cybersecurity and forensic reviews, but stressed some kinds of examinations are constrained by state statutes that treat some election materials as sealed and subject to retention and destruction rules; he said a court order or legislative change would be needed to open certain archived materials.

During public comment dozens of residents urged the commission to press for more data and for a forensic audit; others in the audience and online opposed a costly or ill‑defined audit and warned that changing vote methods (for example, ending mailed ballots) would affect vulnerable voters. Public commenters recounted alleged data breaches, pointed to shifts in voting patterns, and asked for a transparent scope of work for any audit.

After the work session the commission took several formal actions later in the meeting. Commissioners moved to approve an updated resolution (with the addition of the word “unalienable” to the preamble) and recorded the voice vote in favor. They then approved several agenda items including item 10 (a small budget clarification), item 14 (a staffing authorization tied to GRAMA/records requests), and item 15 (a position anticipated to be funded by court‑generated recoupment fees). The commission also continued agenda item 6 for two weeks, struck item 18 from the agenda, and adjourned.

The county clerk summarized routine audit safeguards already in place — logic and accuracy testing before elections, signature matching and a post‑election tabulation audit — and said the clerk’s office is in talks with vendors about cybersecurity and forensic equipment reviews. Commissioners and staff agreed to continue exploring legal and policy paths — including potential legislative change — to broaden the county’s ability to provide more detailed election materials for independent review.

No countywide change in election method was adopted; commissioners concluded the meeting with directions to staff to follow up on budget and staffing questions and to continue the conversation about audit scope and possible legal routes.