Hundreds of residents urge Utah County Commission to pursue forensic audit, commissioners say state law limits action

Dozens of residents and outside speakers filled the Utah County Commission meeting on Feb. 2 to press for a forensic audit of the 2020 election and greater transparency around ballot records.

Speakers across the political spectrum told the commission they had lost confidence in the election system and asked the county to pursue audits, release ballot images and tabulation data, or support statewide policy changes. "We want a forensic audit of the 2020 election," said Kristen Ritchie, who described petition-collecting work for a citizen initiative. Several speakers raised concrete grievances including multiple mail ballots delivered to single households, apparent sudden changes in voter-registration totals, and concerns about chain-of-custody for mail ballots.

The commission heard technical and process-focused testimony from attendees with IT and statistics backgrounds who urged independent review of systems and auditing of processes. "You need to audit the processes that you're saying are happening," said Dave Burton, who described a 45‑year career in information technology and offered to advise county staff. Other commenters urged a broad forensic review to restore public confidence.

Commissioners responded by saying county authority over ballots is limited by state law. "The county commission has no authority to overrule or demand publishing of election results," the chair said, noting a recent communication from the lieutenant governor’s office reiterating statutory limits. Commissioners and county staff explained that original ballots are preserved, sealed, and may only be provided pursuant to a court order in a timely election contest. They also said they have been in contact with state legislators to explore possible legislative fixes.

Commissioner Lee said the commission is sympathetic to calls for transparency and has pursued contacts with other jurisdictions about audit methods. "If there's a way for us to bring more transparency to the process, I'm all in favor of exploring legal options," he said. County staff and the county attorney noted that other election-related records — such as ballot images and project backups — may be subject to public-records rules but that production is constrained by law and by existing ownership/contract terms.

The public-comment period consumed the bulk of the meeting; after comments, the commission moved to a scheduled closed session. The commission did not adopt a forensic-audit mandate during the meeting; commissioners said they will continue discussions with state representatives and consider any lawful steps that could increase transparency.

What’s next: Commissioners said they will carry constituent concern to state legislators and review legal avenues for additional disclosure where permitted by state law. No county-initiated forensic audit was adopted at the meeting.