City staff recommends against hosting extended early-ballot handling after county request

Santaquin — City staff told the Santaquin City Council on April 1 that Utah County Clerk Aaron Davidson has asked municipalities to open city-run locations to accept and verify early (mail-in) ballots for an extended window, but staff recommended the city decline the request.

City staff described two parts of the county request: (1) a routine municipal election funding and contractual resolution (Resolution 0401) covering county administration of municipal elections and (2) a separate request from the county clerk asking cities to host a multi-day or two-week early-ballot intake and ID-check operation to reduce uncured ballots. County Clerk Aaron Davidson authored the email that initiated the request, according to staff.

Why it matters: staff said the county’s proposed procedure would require city-designated personnel to check voter IDs, stamp envelopes, receive mail ballots and store them until county collection — tasks staff said are not in the current county contract and would add major time and security burdens. The city has about 8,000 registered voters; two years ago municipal turnout was roughly 23 percent (about 919 voters), staff reported, and the county’s cost to administer a primary and general election has jumped about 35 percent over two years, in part because the county raised its per-registered-voter charge from $2.25 to $2.75.

City staff said the county’s proposal, as described in the clerk’s email, could require two or three people at a site for many hours each day across multiple days. “We as staff and as legal counsel are recommending that we do not do that,” a city staff member told the council, citing staffing limits, potential ballot custody issues and a lack of locked drop-box or camera infrastructure at proposed locations. The staff member also said the request was not part of the Resolution 0401 contract the council was asked to consider that evening.

Council members raised questions about the proposal’s legal basis and whether the county had explained why costs rose. Staff said cost increases reflect higher per-voter charges and typical increases in staffing and logistics; staff also said they had not seen contractual language covering the additional duties the county clerk requested and believed adding the duties would require explicit contract language.

The discussion referenced state-level election changes passed this year; one council member cited HB 300 in general terms as part of a broader conversation about the future of mail voting and convenience. Staff noted the state’s changes and said the county’s request would not necessarily solve the small number of previously uncured ballots and might create other problems.

Ending: Staff recommended the council approve the county election funding/resolution (Resolution 0401) as presented but decline to accept the county clerk’s separate request to run extended early-ballot intake operations without clearer contract terms, added resources and security measures. The council did not take a recorded final vote on the county-clerk request during the work session.