Utah lawmakers debate bill to publish cast‑vote records while preserving election finality

Representative John Thurston, sponsor of draft election‑records legislation, told the Government Operations Interim Committee that the bill seeks “a crucial balance” between transparency and finality in Utah elections. Thurston said the proposal would clarify which documents are designated as sealed election returns, enhance the canvass report and publish cast‑vote records, and set clearer rules for working copies and other election materials that fall between publicly available documents and sealed returns.

Thurston said the state’s current law already separates ‘‘election returns’’ — material in sealed boxes used for recounts and audits — from other records, but that the bill would “clean up the list of records” and “simplify the statistical element of the canvass report.” He told the committee the cast‑vote record would be published as an attachment to the canvass report, while special service district contests would be excluded because those contests are too small to preserve ballot secrecy.

The bill would preserve the current practice that original election returns held for audit or court review are destroyed after 22 months, Thurston said, while clarifying retention and access rules for ‘‘election materials’’ and working copies that clerks create. He said the measure also aims to reduce clerks’ administrative burden by simplifying reporting requirements formerly required Monday/Wednesday/Friday, clarifying access to drop‑box and counting‑room video, and removing some research and retention mandates (referred to in the hearing as “part 7”).

Clerks and election officials told the committee they have been closely involved in drafting. Brian McKenzie, Davis County clerk speaking for the Clerks Association of the State of Utah, said the clerks appreciate Thurston’s responsiveness and that ‘‘we are getting very close’’ to a product the clerks can support. Aaron Davidson, Utah County clerk, said smaller counties have the ability to scan return envelopes but that doing so may require new equipment and staff time; he described the bill’s approach as optional creation of working copies with clarified status if those copies exist.

Ryan Kelly, director of elections in the lieutenant governor’s office, emphasized the constitutional protection of the secret ballot while supporting the cast‑vote record change in principle. ‘‘Maintaining the secret ballot…is a constitutional right,’’ Kelly said; he recommended protections for the full internal records (database, ballot images, full logs) while allowing publication of the de‑identified cast‑vote record attached to canvass reports.

Committee members questioned details on cure lists and post‑canvass retention. Representative Cutler pressed Thurston on the cast‑vote record format and privacy protections; Thurston said the cast‑vote record would be a line‑item spreadsheet showing each cast ballot’s contest responses but would not include voter identification. On cure lists, Thurston said the bill codifies the status quo: clerks may disclose cure‑list names and addresses to candidates or campaign representatives on request but are not required to do so; if they do disclose, they must follow the rules in the bill. Representative Feathia and others expressed concern that leaving cure‑list disclosure optional could advantage voters in some counties and disadvantage those in others; Thurston said a separate session bill could address making disclosure mandatory or prohibited.

Several members asked about retroactivity. Thurston said retention provisions would apply retroactively (affecting material created under earlier law), but the publication of canvass reports and cast‑vote records for the 2024 general election was not included in his proposal. He described the draft as a negotiated compromise that reduces clerks’ burdens while expanding public access to canvass reports and cast‑vote records going forward.

There were no committee votes to advance the draft. After public comments and follow‑up discussion, the committee moved unanimously to ‘‘commend the bill sponsor for all the good work’’ and proceed to other agenda items; committee members said further edits remain possible before any special‑session filing.

Ending: The committee left the draft open for continued edits and public comment ahead of a possible special session. Thurston and clerks’ representatives said additional technical clarifications could be made before the bill is numbered or at the floor as amendments.