Davis County clerk acknowledges signature-count errors, outlines changes after public questions

At the Davis County Commission meeting on June 17, 2025, County Clerk Brian McKenzie acknowledged mistakes identified by legislative auditors in the county's processing of candidate petition signatures and described measures now required or available to reduce similar errors in future elections.

The remarks followed public comments from residents who raised concerns about recent state actions and local election processes. Tina Horlocker of Syracuse told commissioners she wanted specifics about "the mistakes" county election staff had acknowledged and said, "I would like to know that you know what they are, and that we know what is being done to correct them, because it's a big deal. We need to be able to trust our election process." Jennifer Garner of Layton urged county officials to be proactive about transparency, citing a lawsuit that involved the lieutenant governor's office and concerns about voter rolls being withheld.

McKenzie said the legislative auditors' review of the 2024 candidate petition process found an error rate that varied by packet and identified both false positives (signatures counted as valid that should not have been) and false negatives (signatures counted as invalid that should have been accepted). "So when the question is what were those mistakes that Brian McKenzie admitted to, that's what I'm admitting to, as found by the legislative auditors," McKenzie said. He added the county's overall accuracy in signature handling had been in the high 90s: "We found that we were somewhere around 97 to 99% perfect."

McKenzie described three principal changes intended to reduce errors and increase transparency. First, a pre-certification audit is now required; that audit can identify human errors before signatures are certified. Second, the county may now verify additional signatures after an initial threshold is met; previously staff were required to stop certification once a candidate reached the threshold. Third, petition packets are now more accessible for inspection: candidates or opposing parties can view petition packets unredacted in person (they may not photograph them), and the law establishes public watchers who can observe the process.

McKenzie and the clerk's office have held public town halls to explain procedures and said they welcome additional questions from residents. The commission and clerk's office encouraged anyone with concerns to contact the clerk directly for more detail.

Why it matters: Candidate petition processing affects who appears on local ballots. Even small error rates can prompt legal challenges or public distrust; the county says the statutory changes and internal steps should reduce the chance of repeat problems and increase public oversight.