[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6226312,"mediaKeyId","3511915-c606a397922103a8bf3806a7ce44cd6e","parentId",3511915,"title","Legislative auditors: signature-verification process finds some errors tied to subjectivity; lawmakers and candidates press for more transparency and rule fixes","audioSeconds",1864,"startMs",2616000,"endMs",4480000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3511915-c606a397922103a8bf3806a7ce44cd6e&start=2616&end=4480","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3511915-c606a397922103a8bf3806a7ce44cd6e/thumbnail_2616000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6226312/Utah/Legislative-auditors-signature-verification-process-finds-some-errors-tied-to-subjectivity-lawmakers-and-candidates-press-for-more-transparency-and-rule-fixes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6226312-00c39308a0f9a0233f78aa23a545cf15/orig.mp4?Expires=1770419825&Signature=h~d8RpumChXKFnqNsLWNnoZFbPECTm70-OTt8tQPv-Ju88T1k5Qgeasgv3VRbH--Tcc7f7LPYETViIp8gvpWG-pgnZeC7PLFP09IkCNgpTN4-1pyteKI369z0b~em~7YoS3CAwMvdj4L~XQklVpXS9cHeqRCZPniMsfseMySNXcHu7ithwRfax99NXc78hw5WMish6TDuOc7M71IjxrG1olQsJG5tnJ11Ee1TtKQwdI1-wc3rzfRYnph4OCGxVek8aJBEQBQyk~eUkpa4GBXXtZmIVHt345NMgFwZIY~RzaizNNsjQw6ShBVO8fvDeE~uoVsvjlTD-7D-OgzOeQXOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Legislature","date","2025-05-22T00:00:00Z","article","Auditors from the Office of the Legislative Auditor General told a Utah Legislature interim committee they tested signature verification on statewide nomination packets and found the verification process generally caught significant invalid signatures but produced measurable error rates driven largely by subjectivity in signature comparison.

Jesse Martinson, audit manager for the legislative auditors, told the committee the audit examined candidate nomination packets submitted for three statewide campaigns — including packets for then-Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox, Senator John Curtis and Derek Brown — and tested a random sample of 1,000 signatures for each candidate. “It appears to us that the existing signature verification process is able, to reasonably identify significant instances of invalid signatures,” Martinson said, summarizing the office’s conclusions about the verification process while noting variability in error rates across the samples.

The audit’s sample found two types of errors: signatures that were validated but should have been rejected, and signatures that were invalidated but should have been accepted. For Governor Cox’s sample the auditors reported an incorrectly validated error rate of 2.4% and an incorrectly invalidated rate of 1.9%; when extrapolated to the full population of reviewed signatures those sample rates would correspond to an estimated several hundred incorrectly validated signatures and a smaller number incorrectly invalidated. Martinson told lawmakers the differences in error rates are attributable to the inherently subjective nature of visual signature comparison and to sampling variability.

Recommendations and legislative response

The auditors recommended the lieutenant governor’s office calculate an empirical error rate for the verification process and factor that rate into the number of signatures required of candidates so there is a buffer to account for expected verification error. The audit also noted the terms used in guidance — such as “substantially similar” and “reasonably consistent” — are not clearly differentiated or defined in statute, administrative rule or the LG’s manual.

Ryan Kelly, director of elections for the lieutenant governor’s office, told the committee the audit “was very helpful” and described several responses already under way. Kelly said the lieutenant governor’s office and the legislature advanced changes in SB 164 that will require the reviewing officer to verify additional signatures — up to 10% beyond the threshold — and create a 1% audit of verified signatures. He also said the LG’s office is revising administrative rule language to clarify verification standards and training materials and that the office will make nomination packets viewable to candidates and party chairs prior to certification.

Davis County Clerk Brian McKenzie, whose office performed verification for the statewide races under contract to the LG’s office, told the committee that clerks have long required verification training and that claims some temporary workers lacked training were incorrect. McKenzie acknowledged errors identified by the audit and said the county and the LG’s office are implementing chain-of-custody and transparency changes.

Public comment raised additional concerns

Two public commenters who ran or supported candidates in the 2024 statewide cycle pressed officials to make additional changes or to expand audits. Michael Clara and candidate Natalie Clausen described difficulty obtaining access to nomination packets, alleged chain-of-custody irregularities and, in Clausen’s case, broader concerns about election-related documents such as cast-vote records and mail-envelope handling.

Clara told the committee he believes some “spare” or backfill signatures used to meet a candidate threshold were not fully traceable in public records and asked the committee to investigate missing cover sheets and packet records. Clausen asked the committee to examine whether privately withheld names in petitions are being treated consistently with statute and asked the committee to review allegations of improper inducement of a write-in candidate and whether investigative agencies responded adequately.

Officials’ next steps

The lieutenant governor’s office told the committee it is preparing revised administrative rules to: clarify verification standards and terminology; require an audit sample and calculation of an empirical error rate to inform how many extra signatures a candidate must provide; and make nomination packets viewable to candidates and party chairs in unredacted form until certification. The Davis County Clerk said he will improve chain-of-custody documentation for packets and that his office is prepared to implement the additional verification and audit steps.

Lawmakers signaled they will review proposed rule language in an upcoming committee meeting and asked election officials to return with clearer documentation of chain-of-custody processes and training completion for temporary verification staff.

Ending

Committee members said they will monitor the implementation of the administrative-rule changes and the effect of the SB 164 provisions on error rates and transparency. Several members urged a wider review of related election materials, including cast-vote records and county-level canvas materials, where legally permitted, so the public can better understand how election outcomes were produced.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Rules Review and General Oversight Committee - May 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Auditors told a Utah Legislature interim committee that signature verification for nomination petitions detected significant invalid signatures but showed measurable error rates driven by subjective judgment; the lieutenant governor’s office and county clerks described rule, audit and transparency changes they will implement.","taxTitle","2025 Utah Legislature, Utah Legislature, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",78171,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6226317,"Utah Retirement Systems tells Legislature backlog in initial retirement payments stemmed from IT upgrade and staff turnover; fixes underway",650,589000,1239000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3511915-c606a397922103a8bf3806a7ce44cd6e&start=589&end=1239","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3511915-c606a397922103a8bf3806a7ce44cd6e/thumbnail_589000.jpg","/articles/6226317/Utah/Utah-Retirement-Systems-tells-Legislature-backlog-in-initial-retirement-payments-stemmed-from-IT-upgrade-and-staff-turnover-fixes-underway","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6226317-07e298e5c4ec9db748c443e77b429b83/orig.mp4?Expires=1770419825&Signature=QVMhY9U2LWb0z4N-EPkvc5iIavvkO3ZlrqyGAKqAj~vZkBBLe83as-u8X7pGHMzWsrQesS0DtLVioFABEsGz2Bo9QCAgjwrdKeoxCf16m27n78GZUjcReKmQVwTRDQ5O9FU3vtNwhXP6zrbiU2ORalEZ5Im9J-adOBhCD4BQcFJK38Z2wgNEVA83pLpONw82BsImV4k9s92QjDbnPYBjrMnm2EP3pP-eV5twnf9j4vZ53jBv-i7HxVSVP0BYx~qeMpl1fCUchVXDIuQ23H171yZpoQ7aWTQPkL17Qj~fscHFTHA8Y66rNwN88Lg0XiVDHoKXDCjsLIvIehW3S6lGPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Utah Retirement Systems told a Utah Legislature interim committee that delays in processing initial retirement payments this year resulted from a technology upgrade that drew subject-matter staff away from day-to-day processing and from higher-than-expected staff turnover.

The explanation came during a presentation by Dan Anderson, executive director of Utah Retirement Systems, who told the committee, “we, due to a confluence of issues … have fallen below the standards that we expect of ourselves and that our members and our stakeholders expect of us. And we own that.”

Anderson said the retirement application process remains largely manual because URS must assemble decades of personnel and payroll records from multiple data sources. He described the current quality-control practice as one in which “three different retirement calculator employees will go through” a file to ensure accuracy, and said that manual work combined with the pension-administration IT upgrade and unanticipated turnover in management and staff produced a backlog during the early months of 2025.

The nut graf: URS said its short-term response reduced the backlog substantially and that a new pension administration system — already in late-stage implementation — should shorten processing times further. The department described immediate steps taken to restore service and outlined a timeline for broader improvements.

Anderson told the committee URS enacted several short-term fixes as soon as the problem was identified: cross-training staff from other parts of the retirement division, reassigning a subject-matter expert from the IT project back to benefit calculations, hiring new staff and bringing back a retired former employee to help, directly communicating with members affected by the delay, and — in some urgent cases — processing off-cycle payments outside the usual monthly batch payroll. “We really tried to once we became aware of the situation, really tried to put some immediate short term fixes in place,” Anderson said.

Status and timeline

Anderson said URS maintains a benchmark that first retirement payments should be processed within 90 days and that the agency has returned close to its long-term performance levels. He told lawmakers that at the peak of the backlog the office had more than 200 retirees waiting beyond the 90-day window, and that figure has fallen to a single case now pending only because of a pending domestic relations order filed in a divorce proceeding. Anderson said URS manages roughly 80,000 retirees and that, with the new administrative system and cleaned, centralized data, “virtually all of our retirements should be paid within the first 30 days” once migration completes — a goal he said could be met within about a year.

Statutory timing and planning

Anderson and members discussed statutory timing: under current law and practice a public employee may submit a final retirement application up to 90 days before their last day of employment, and URS can finalize an effective retirement date up to 90 days after termination. Anderson explained the 90-day window is the current standard but said URS will analyze whether earlier submission lanes or queueing can reduce the practical window to avoid an interruption in monthly income for retirees who plan in advance. Representative Walter asked whether URS could treat applications submitted at least 60 days before retirement differently so payments could begin on time; Anderson said URS would analyze the data and “be happy to do that analysis.”

Reasons for the backlog

Anderson summarized causes as: 1) a major IT upgrade that consumed subject-matter experts; 2) management- and staff-level turnover that reduced capacity more than expected; 3) the decision not to immediately backfill some positions for cost reasons; and 4) annual seasonal spikes in retirement applications that occur early in the year. Those factors together, he said, created an episodic operational shortfall rather than a long-term systemic failure.

Measures to reduce future risk

Anderson offered three lessons learned: build more robust downside scenario planning when shifting personnel to large IT projects; improve and formalize metric reporting to detect declines sooner; and complete the pension administration system migration to centralize decades of payroll and employment data. He said URS will retain the cross-trained staff and other short-term measures until the new system is fully operational. He also described plans to enhance internal performance monitoring so that similar problems are detected earlier.

Committee questions and follow-up

Committee members pressed for specifics about timing and customer experience. Senator Eskimia asked whether the 90-day statutory timeframe could be shortened by statute; Anderson said the change that will deliver the fastest improvement is technology, not a statutory amendment, and that “virtually all of the payments will be done within 30 days” once the new system is fully rolled out. Representative Walter emphasized the hardship for individuals and asked URS to analyze how often the theoretical 180-day window (90 days before retirement plus 90 days after) occurs in practice and then propose ways retirees who apply earlier could be guaranteed a seamless payment start date. Anderson agreed to perform that analysis.

What this means for members

Anderson said URS has been contacting members affected by the backlog and, when appropriate, issued one-off off-cycle checks to address urgent needs. He stressed the agency’s commitment to accuracy in final calculations and said the three-person verification step is labor intensive but important for avoiding payment errors. He closed by reiterating that URS has implemented short-term fixes and remains engaged to complete the data migration and system upgrades that should shorten processing times and improve customer experience.

Ending

The committee thanked URS staff for the briefing and asked for follow-up data on the timing analysis and on metrics tracking. Anderson said URS would return with more detailed metrics and analysis on early-application outcomes and the timeline for the administration system roll-out.

","Utah Retirement Systems told a Utah Legislature interim committee that delays in processing initial retirement payments this year resulted from a technology upgrade that drew subject-matter staff away from day-to-day processing and from higher-than-expected staff turnover.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Legislative auditors: signature-verification process finds some errors tied to subjectivity; lawmakers and candidates press for more transparency and rule fixes

Utah Retirement Systems tells Legislature backlog in initial retirement payments stemmed from IT upgrade and staff turnover; fixes underway