Every county clerk in Utah is pushing Cox to veto election records bill, except one

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — All but one of Utah’s 29 county clerks are pushing Gov. Spencer Cox to veto an elections bill that will allow some sensitive election returns to be made public for “research.”

Utah County Clerk Aaron Davidson is that lone clerk, telling ABC4.com this bill is about transparency.

“I am a transparency purist,” Davidson said in an interview with ABC4.com. “I think if we can make it more transparent we should. There’s a lot of concern that what the bill asks for would require the clerks to do a lot more work. It’s probably more onerous for the smaller counties that don’t currently do what the larger counties do.”

According to a veto letter sent to Governor Cox, and another one echoed by the Utah Association of Counties (UAC), the other 28 clerks are concerned about the cumbersome and vague requirements, the cost, and the records getting into the wrong hands.

The bill at hand is H.B. 263 — or Election Records Amendments. It requires clerks to scan, preserve, and keep a digital copy of election materials and records, such as the signed back of the envelope, records of the votes cast, and the scanned ballots for at least 12 years — a process the clerks say not all counties currently have the equipment to do.

“The scanning of the envelope is a significant new requirement that will disproportionally hurt the mid-sized and smaller counties,” the clerks’ veto letter reads.

The bill also sets up a process for any digitalized election record to be accessed with approval from a legislative body like a county commission or state legislature for the duration of those 12 years. Right now, saved records are only required to be kept for 22 months, and once results are certified and sealed, they can only be accessed by specific people with a justified court order.

“The bill does not define what qualifies as ‘research’ of the documents and data, creating an opportunity for any conceivable type of research from the legislature, county clerk, or county legislative body,” the clerks’ letter reads.

Davidson disagrees with this, saying that the open door is important for any kind of research someone may want to perform.

“Sometimes you don’t know what kind of research you want to conduct,” Davidson expressed. “I didn’t know what type of research I wanted to conduct when I took office … so this would kind of solve that issue.”

Davidson mentioned that this bill would provide his office tools in exploring discrepancies that may arise during an election season.

“If we are running our election as safe and secure as possible, I am completely open to any kind of research that is allowable that would not release how somebody actually voted,” he said.

Cast vote records are protected, Utah courts say

The other clerks are particularly concerned that H.B. 263 could cause cast vote records to be public. In Utah, ballots are scanned into machines that take a digital photo of how the voter cast their vote in order to be tabulated. In smaller precincts, clerks say the records can be used to triangulate how someone voted.

Their letter makes note of a July 2022 case over 2020 election results that deemed cast vote records as protected, a ruling that was later upheld by Utah’s Court of Appeals.

A pair of Utah women, Jennifer Orten and Sophie Anderson, known online as Two Red Pills, sued to get access to 2020 election cast vote records and three other types of election returns.

The clerks point to the lower court ruling in their veto letter.

“By restricting access to these records, Utah law preserves the integrity of both elections and election contests,” they note 4th district Judge Derek Pullan said. “In the absence of these restrictions, the door to fraud and corruption would be left wide open.”

The ruling ads, “The disclosure of these materials to anyone who asked would permit bad actors bent on undermining public confidence in an election to manufacture fraudulent evidence supporting their baseless claims.”

The clerks argue the bill does not increase transparency and may have grave consequences if signed.

“In our opinion, the considerable unfunded mandates in this bill do not justify any potential benefits this unspecified research might provide, and may in fact, as Judge Pullan stated, ‘open the door to fraud and corruption,'” the clerks’ letter reads.

Davidson doesn’t believe that the bill would lead to what the other clerks are claiming, saying that more transparency and research is crucial to maintain trust in the election process.

“I like research, I think a lot more people like research, and the more we try to make it less transparent, the more doubters are going to doubt,” Davidson said. “So why not just open it up and give the doubters what they want and then there won’t be the doubt. I think it will create more trust and transparency in the system and there won’t be so many people questioning the election at all.”