Can a Signature Candidate Force a Direct Primary?

• Incumbent Governor Spencer Cox lost to challenger Phil Lyman at the Utah GOP Convention 67.5% to 32.5%, and as such, failed to qualify for the primary ballot via the convention.
• When Lyman emerged as the sole Republican nominee at the convention, Cox was forced to rely on the signatures he had already collected to qualify.
  
• Lyman has filed a petition arguing that, based on previous litigation surrounding Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), a signature candidate cannot force a direct primary when one would otherwise not have been held, as was the case here. The case is pending with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Obstruction and Redaction

• In the meantime, according to state law, candidates for governor are required to collect signatures from 28,000 registered voters of the same party to gain ballot access via the signature path. Cox supposedly gained his spot on the primary ballot using this process.
• In Washington County, it was determined through the GRAMA (records request) process that signatures from another candidate were under criminal investigation.
• Cox used the same company as this candidate, and Lyman and others requested access to the names on Cox’s petition to verify their legitimacy.
• These efforts have been blocked at every turn, with lists returned 40% redacted. The relevant state agencies claim the redacted names are in the “private” or “withheld” categories, but by law, candidates such as Lyman are owed the “private” category while “withheld” is left to the discretion of the state.
• Lyman has openly stated that he does not believe Cox has the requisite number of signatures on file, but continued interference by Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson prevents verification.
• LG Henderson is Cox's running mate (on the same ticket) and oversees all elections in Utah.

Legislative Audit Shows Cox Likely Did NOT Qualify

• Last week, a legislative audit found that 2.4% of Cox’s 1,000 sampled signatures were incorrectly validated, meaning they were validated when they should not have been. An additional 1.9% were incorrectly rejected.
• When these error rates were applied to the full register of 28,000 names, with incorrectly validated signatures removed and incorrectly rejected names credited to Cox, a balance of 572 names would be removed. Cox had 492 extra signatures on file, meaning that Cox likely failed to meet the threshold required for a spot on the ballot by at least 80 signatures. 
• This is hugely significant, because it means he likely DID NOT QUALIFY for the ballot.
• Those rushing to Cox’s aid were quick to report that Cox did “everything that was asked of him” and that the law did not allow him to submit more signatures after he allegedly hit the threshold, something that he would have had time to do. 
• “Fulfilling the requirements given” is not the same as having the requisite number of signatures. The audit found he likely did NOT meet the legal requirement with the signatures on file.