Legislative audit finds signature errors for Cox, Brown, Curtis but says ballot access requirements met

SALT LAKE CITY — A legislative audit has found some errors in the number of signatures gathered to qualify three statewide Republican candidates for the ballot: Gov. Spencer Cox, attorney general candidate Derek Brown, and candidate for Senate, John Curtis. However, the report is clear that each candidate met requirements to qualify for the ballot based on the Davis County clerk’s verification of those signatures.

“Subjectivity in signature verification standards poses a risk to correctly verifying signatures,” the report states. “This risk highlights the need for further clarification of signature verification standards.”

The performance audit presented to the legislative audit subcommittee Tuesday sampled 1,000 signatures from each candidate and found that each had some signatures accepted that should have been rejected and likewise had signatures rejected that should have been accepted when the Davis County Clerk’s office was validating their signatures packets on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor’s Office.

In total, it found that if the rates of signature error were applied to the total 28,000 signatures required for statewide office, Cox would have had 572 erroneous signatures, Curtis 400, and Brown 140.

Andrew Poulter, the lead auditor on the report, presented the findings to top lawmakers Tuesday afternoon and noted that state law prevents candidates from submitting signatures once they have cleared the signature threshold. He said all three candidates followed the proper procedures set out by law.

“As far as we can tell, the candidates, there’s nothing more they could have done,” said Jesse Martinson, a manager with the legislative auditor’s office. “They did everything they were asked to do.”

Cox, Curtis, and Brown called for the audit after repeated claims of improprieties and a court challenge by now write-in candidate for governor, Rep. Phil Lyman. Lyman has alleged malfeasance by the Cox campaign and the company they and others used to gather those signatures. Lyman sued to get access to the signature names and addresses of voters who signed Cox and others’ petitions but has so far been denied, largely because voters have chosen to have their information kept private, preventing the names from being released.

A Cox campaign spokesperson said the campaign supports the recommendations in the audit, including one that would allow candidates to continue to submit signatures even after they reached the threshold — something that is not currently allowed under Utah law.

“Additional signatures from Cox campaign supporters were submitted to the campaign but were prohibited from being submitted to the county clerk’s office,” the spokesperson said. “The governor’s focus continues to be making a case for policies that will keep Utah’s future bright to earn the support of voters throughout the state.”

“The audit confirmed that Spencer Cox, John Curtis, and Derek Brown fulfilled the requirements to qualify to be on the ballot. Although the audit identified some errors in the signature verification process, these would not have affected the primary election’s outcome,” Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said in a joint statement.

They said lawmakers have already opened bill files to address some of the recommendations made in the report.

Each candidate would have had more time

The legislative auditor’s report notes that despite the errors in signatures collected, Cox, “submitted an additional 492 signatures that the Davis County Clerk’s office could have reviewed. Also, he would have had 28 more days to collect more signatures.”

Curtis had enough signatures to bridge his statistical shortfall — 2,594, to be exact. He would have also had six more days to collect signatures.

And for Brown, the report notes he submitted an additional 1,801 signatures and had 10 more days to collect. The report outlines that once a candidate reaches the required threshold, they legally cannot gather any more signatures.

“Thus, while each candidate had extra signatures, they could not have supplemented them further unless they were told that they had not reached the signature threshold,” the report states.

It also points out the difference between this audit and the one done by state auditor John Dougall. That audit found that the campaigns likely had more than enough signatures to get on the ballot.

“A likely factor for this is different types of samples. (The Office of the State Auditor) selected samples from the signers who had invoked privacy protection for their voter registration information. We selected our samples from the full list of signers. Another potential factor is the subjective nature of signature verification standards,” it states.

Human error and recommendations

The report outlines that human error and a lack of clarity with signature verification processes are likely what led to the signature verification errors.

“The lack of definition on what a “substantially similar” signature is, and human error likely played a role in the misclassifications that we found,” the report states. “The standards say a signature is valid if it is ‘substantially similar’ to signatures in the voter registration database, but details for what ‘substantially similar’ means are not outlined.”

It also outlines seven recommendations to improve signature verification for ballot packets — noting that there are different requirements for nominating petitions than when verifying the signatures on the back of a ballot envelope.

The recommendations were for both the Lieutenant Governor’s Office and the Utah Legislature to consider.

“Primarily, we found that moving forward, an error rate should be factored into the number of signatures required for verification. Had an error rate been calculated, each candidate had either submitted more signatures that could have been validated or would have had more time to collect signatures if needed,” it states.

In addition to clearer definitions and an error rate, the report also calls for the lieutenant governor to implement more training, make signature standards public, and implement better chain of custody protocols for who’s handling ballot packets.

It also recommends to the legislature that they consider new laws to implement controls over signature verification. It suggests things like requiring an audit of signature packets — similar to the way a 1% sample of ballot envelope signatures are audited every election.

It also suggests the Legislature should consider making public the lists of people who sign candidate petitions.

Lieutenant Governor’s Office responds

In the report, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson writes that she agrees with most of the report’s recommendations.

“The signature errors identified in the audit were likely due to the subjective nature of the signature verification process and can be corrected going forward as these recommendations are implemented,” she writes.

Ryan Cowley, the state’s elections director, spoke to the committee to respond to the report. He said his office “fully complied with every request that was made” and thanked auditors for their recommendations.

“It’s easy to focus on the recommendations and findings of the audit,” he said, but noted that the audit found no evidence of fraud, signatures for people who did not exist, or evidence that elected officials counted or verified their own signatures.

“What it did find is that the signatures were properly reviewed in the manner prescribed by law and the processes were followed,” he said.

Contributing: Bridger Beal-Cvetko, KSL.com