A State Records Committee hearing on Jan. 24, 2024, considered an appeal by petitioner Michael Claro for access to names in two batches of “unreviewed” signature packets tied to Spencer Cox’s 2024 nominating petitions. The presiding records-office designee, Michael Borrell, took the matter under advisement and said a written decision would be issued within seven business days; the parties will have 30 calendar days after that to appeal to district court.

The dispute centers on whether a list of signers exists for packets that were not entered into Utah’s VISTA signature-entry system and therefore were not compiled into an ordinary-course list. Natalie Clausen, attorney for the petitioner, argued the records should be released so the public can reconcile conflicting counts and unresolved questions about an overlapping criminal investigation. “This is a case today of dishonesty, deception, and delay in the highest levels of our government,” Clausen said, and she repeated the petitioners’ contention that state officials have provided inconsistent counts — citing an initial claim of 592 “unviewed” signatures and later auditing figures that differ from that number.

Scott Cheney, an attorney with the Utah Attorney General’s Office representing the lieutenant governor’s office, countered that the office does not maintain a preexisting list for the unverified packets because names were not entered into VISTA. Cheney said the ordinary business practice is to generate lists from VISTA data and that a governmental entity is not required under GRAMA to “create a record, compile, format, manipulate, package, summarize, or tailor information” that it does not already maintain. He told the hearing the packets remain in custody and that some were provided to the attorney general’s office for investigative review.

Both sides described prior and parallel processes: the lieutenant governor’s office and county clerks validate signatures up to the statutory threshold; auditors later examined additional packets; and some packets were transferred to the attorney general’s office. Clausen said petitioners were denied in-person viewing before the primary and challenged earlier court filings that described the packets as “verified.” She also told the hearing she had received cover sheets for a portion of the packets after paying $40, but that an offer to view redacted images had been priced at about $590 and was therefore not acceptable to her client.

The parties cited multiple statutory provisions and procedures during oral argument. Counsel for the petitioner and for the lieutenant governor referenced the Utah Mediation Act (Title 78B, Chapter 10) as limiting use of mediation communications in the proceeding and cited GRAMA provisions (including citations discussed at the hearing such as 63G-2-201 and 63G-2-305.5 and related subparts) concerning required disclosures and protected records. The lieutenant governor’s counsel also cited GRAMA language that allows withholding records where disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing civil or criminal investigation; counsel said some packets remain with the attorney general’s office for investigative purposes.

Petitioner Michael Claro withdrew a second, duplicative appeal during the hearing and asked the committee either to order release of the packets or, as a compromise, to require production of cover sheets for the remaining records. The hearing officer declined to rule immediately, saying the issues warranted additional legal review, and took the matter under advisement.

Next steps: the hearing officer will issue a written decision within seven business days; that decision will state whether the records custodian’s GRAMA responses complied with the statute and whether further production or in-person review is required. After the decision is issued, either party may appeal to district court within 30 calendar days.