Candidates and county GOP press for access to nominating petitions and CAS records amid signature disputes

Phil Lyman and Natalie Clausen described efforts to review nominating-petition packets and CAS (canvas) records after their campaigns and county clerks raised concerns about signature verification for a gubernatorial candidate.

Natalie Clausen identified the packets used to qualify candidates by gathering signatures as "nominating petitions" under state code and said she expected them to be accessible for inspection. Clausen said some pages the campaign requested were produced with large portions marked "private/withheld," which she and others asked courts to review. "Code is very clear," Clausen said, arguing that nominating petitions should be treated differently than voter-roll privacy rules.

Phil Lyman described a sequence of administrative steps his team said they followed: public records requests, appeals to administrative officers, and then litigation when they said records were not produced in the timeframes specified by law. Lyman said some counties informed the lieutenant governor’s office in March that they had concerns about packets that later were not made fully available for inspection.

Speakers asserted that one candidate who qualified by signature-gathering did not meet the 28,000 valid-signature threshold they described and that their campaign sought access to the supporting records to verify counts. The pair said the lieutenant governor’s office and other state officials denied or limited access; they have asked courts to compel production and to determine whether statutory definitions require disclosure to candidates.

Clausen and Lyman also described how different treatment of petition records appeared inconsistent: the campaigns said other candidates were allowed to inspect packets in person, while they were denied similar access, and that some signatures were turned over to the attorney general’s office. They said these discrepancies prompted litigation over both the content of petition packets and whether the packets are publicly inspectable in whole or in part.

Why it matters: The petition packets are the documentary basis for the signature pathway to a primary ballot under SB 54. Access to those packets and to CAS/canvas records bears on verification of whether threshold signature counts were met and on transparency of the signature-review process.

Ending: The guests said they filed lawsuits after exhausting administrative remedies and asked the courts to resolve whether nominating petitions and related verification records must be produced in full to candidates and their representatives.