Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Petition Fraud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County clerk says 28 petition packets flagged as fraudulent and referred to county attorney
Summary
Aaron Davidson told a Republican Party podcast his office identified 28 potentially fraudulent packets in a repeal petition (Prop 4) and has turned them over to the county attorney; earlier referrals resulted in guilty pleas by signature gatherers, he said.
Aaron Davidson, Utah County clerk and a candidate for reelection, told the Utah County Republican Party podcast that during processing of a repeal petition (referred to as Prop 4) his staff identified 28 petition packets with signatures they considered fraudulent or nonmatching and referred those packets to the county attorney for investigation.
Davidson described how his office used a tracking spreadsheet to identify high‑error packets: misspelled place names, mismatched signatures and signers who told county staff they had not signed the petition. "We ended up with 28 packets of fraudulent signatures," he said, and added that he has turned the material over to investigators and told signers to expect to be contacted.
Davidson noted the county attorney has not completed work on those referrals; he said earlier referrals (from a prior cycle) led to prosecutions in which signature gatherers pleaded guilty. "We did three packets two years ago and they prosecuted those and the signature gatherers pled guilty," Davidson said.
Context and limits: Davidson framed the work as routine verification and explained the mechanics his office uses (phone checks, signature comparison, and address checks) to identify suspicious packets. He emphasized that identifying fraud is independent of his view on the petition’s substance: "Whether I agree with it or disagree with it, I'm going to treat it as, you know, I'm looking for fraud and if you're trying to do fraud, I'm going to do my best to find you," he said.
Next steps: Davidson said he has prepared the referral and is awaiting follow‑up by criminal investigators and the county attorney’s office. He did not provide names of gathered signers or investigative timetables on the podcast.
Ending: The referral was presented on the podcast as a factual account from the clerk’s office; independent confirmation of the county attorney’s subsequent actions was not provided on the recording.
