PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 11, 2024

“Denying disclosure prevents citizens from identifying error and fraud:” Lyman Appeals Latest GRAMA Denial

SALT LAKE CITY — The  Lieutenant Governor’s Office has again denied Phil Lyman’s request to analyze Utah’s voter rolls.  This denial comes despite last month’s U.S. District Court ruling which stated that “South Carolina’s prohibition on the distribution of the [Statewide Voter Registration List] to only eligible South Carolina voters conflicts with the [National Voter Registration Act] NVRA’s mandate that all records concerning maintenance and accuracy activities be made available for ‘public inspection.’” The Utah LG’s Office failed to provide any type of response within the timeframe stipulated by Utah law, which is legally considered a denial. Lyman has twice previously requested the voter rolls and was also denied on each occasion. 

Lyman’s requests for transparency have continually been blocked and obstructed by LG Deidre Henderson and others. This includes Henderson’s guidance to the county clerks in July demanding that election information such as the cast vote record and accompanying documents not be released, and most notably, denial of access to Spencer Cox’s nomination petition to allow verification that his place on the ballot is legitimate. Lyman was also quoted fees of $5,000 for one set of records relating to communications between elected officials. When he requested a fee waiver, the State Records Committee set a hearing date in late November — after the election. In another case, he was asked if he wanted a refund of the fee he had already paid instead of the records due to unspecified delays. 

Congress expressly stated that the NVRA grants public access to voter rolls in order “to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained” (52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(1)-(4)). Section 8(i) of the NVRA provides for the disclosure of voter registrations in order to “assist the identification of both error and fraud in the preparation and maintenance of voter rolls” (Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331, 339 (4th Cir. 2012)).“

“Denying disclosure prevents citizens from identifying error and fraud, which appears to be the objective of the LG’s office. This type of slow-rolling will not work,” Lyman said. “It may facilitate an immediate fraudulent election free from scrutiny, but it is clearly a violation of the public interest, not to mention a violation of the NVRA.”

###