Ballots whiz through a processing machine at the Salt Lake County Government Center in Salt Lake City on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
A panel of Utah lawmakers has given the first nod to a draft bill that would criminalize access to and disclosure of certain information about how and when individual voters return their ballots.
The Government Operations Interim Committee voted unanimously Wednesday to approve the first version of the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Stephanie Gricius, R-Eagle Mountain. The vote will involve priority consideration of the bill when the Legislature convenes Jan. 25 in the 2025 general session.
The legislation comes as some elected officials — including Sen. Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork, who was recently elected to the Senate’s new Republican leadership team as majority assistant — have raised concerns about Utah County Clerk Aaron Davidson . keeping information on how at least two politicians returned their ballots.
What would the bill do?
Gricius’ bill, as currently drafted, would make it “unlawful for any person to access an election record to determine whether a specific voter” or a small, identifiable group of voters “voted in person or otherwise,” the method they used to return their ballot, or the date they voted or returned their ballot.
Following Utah County Clerk’s Voting Method Amounts to ‘Voter Intimidation,’ Commissioner Says
Under the bill, an election official who already has lawful access to such election data may access or disclose the information only “to the extent necessary to perform a duty” within his capacity as an election official, to comply with a court order, or if the specific voter requests the election official in writing to access the information.
“What this bill essentially says is that you shouldn’t look at someone’s information for fun,” Gricius said. “If you don’t have a specific election-related goal, you can’t just look up specific people.”
A violation of the law would be a class B misdemeanor. If the Legislature approves it, it will take effect May 7.
Where does this come from?
Gricius did not specifically mention Davidson when she explained the legislation during Wednesday’s interim committee meeting, but she alluded to him.
“This was as a result of a county clerk’s release of information to the media about specific individuals and the manner in which they cast their votes,” Gricius said, adding that some of the voter data disclosed was not classified as private, but some was .
Last month, Davidson told the Desert News he follows how politicians cast their votes. He specifically mentioned McKell — who Davidson has criticized for discouraging voters from mailing their ballots — and called out McKell for not putting a stamp on his ballot during the primary.
McKell said he first heard about the issue when a Deseret News reporter contacted him, and it alarmed him because he said he had chosen to classify his voter data as private. McKell said he believes Davidson violated state law for revealing information about his voter status. The Utah County Attorney’s Office has said it is investigating these claims.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES IN YOUR INBOX
Giricus was apparently also on Davidson’s list, which she disapproved of FOX 13 as “inappropriate” because she said he used his position as a clerk to “search for specific ballots for the purpose of gathering information about those individuals that could be used against them in the political arena.”
In an interview with Utah News Dispatch on Wednesday, Davidson said he told Gricius in a “personal conversation, because I felt she was sincere about election integrity,” that he noticed she had mailed her ballot.
“I told her, ‘Stephanie, you also used the US Postal Service, and I want you to know that I truly believe it is safer to return it through our mailboxes and mail. I would just encourage you to use those methods,” Davidson said, adding that “she is the one who publicly announced that we had a private conversation about it.”
In response to Gricius’ bill, Davidson dismissed it as “doing Michael McKell’s bidding,” and attributed it to a feud between himself and the senator. The two have clashed over Davidson’s earlier decision that Utah County would no longer automatically pay postage for mail-in ballots, and Davidson instead encouraged voters to pay the $0.73 for their stamps. If they didn’t, the US Postal Service would still deliver the ballot, but tax the county.
“That data point of how someone returns their ballot is not marked as a private record, and Mike McKell is resentful that I exposed it, and now that he has the power to make something that is labeled illegal, he has decided that he wanted to make it. illegal because it was too cheap to put a stamp on,” Davidson said.
However, McKell told Utah News Dispatch that Gricius opened the bill on her own after learning that Davidson was monitoring the voting methods of certain elected officials.
“I didn’t even know she opened the bill,” McKell said, adding that Davidson’s claim that she is doing his “bidding” is “complete nonsense.”
“Aaron should focus on organizing elections instead of seeking out private information of elected officials,” McKell said. “It was an incredibly problematic way he conducted that election.”
Utah’s Late Election Results: What Went Wrong?
Davidson has argued that he did nothing wrong, and that the information that would limit Gricius’ bill is already publicly available on the existing website.Who voted‘ report that the state is offering voter information on a paid subscription basis that is not classified as private.
Although the Who Voted report contains bulk voter information – including names, party affiliation, voting method (such as whether they voted early or by mail), and the date the voter returned the ballot – it does not include information that voters chose to keep as private to classify. It also does not say whether or not there was a stamp on a voter’s ballot envelope.
Because Davidson knew which envelope McKell’s ballot was in and whether postage had been paid for it, it suggests that his efforts to track politicians’ voting methods are “very different” from the Who Has Voted report, McKell said, “and the took a lot of time to follow the voting methods of politicians. effort on his part.”
“I specifically made the choice to have my ballot be private,” McKell said. “And disclosing that I voted at all is a violation of that statute, and that’s why he’s under investigation.”
Asked why Gricius’ bill is needed, McKell said lawmakers are considering adding “clarity to the constitutional right” to a secret ballot with “legal protections.”
Gricius acknowledged during Wednesday’s committee meeting that as the bill progresses through the legislative session, it may need to be “adjusted” to ensure the legislation does not limit the existing “Who Voted” report. But she said she is “committed to working through that as we keep the process moving.”
What her bill ultimately aims at is actions to target and release information about individuals or a small group of individuals, and to access that information without a professional reason.
“If you don’t have an official purpose for searching a specific individual,” Gricius said, “you really shouldn’t be doing that.”
Committee debate
Committee chairman Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City, spoke in favor of the bill, saying, “Elections and voting are kind of a big deal to me. I would argue that if we don’t run our elections well, nothing else we do will matter.”
“The idea that a district secretary could reveal information – whether for a noble crusade idea or out of malice or spite – is irrelevant,” Thatcher said. “The idea that anyone could access that protected, sacred right to vote and weaponize it against adversaries or enemies, real or perceived, is unthinkable.”
Marilyn Momeny of American Fork also spoke in favor of the bill, saying she worked part-time on elections in 2022 and 2023 and had access to voter databases. She said it is “concerning” that an election official would focus on individuals’ voting methods and make that information public.
“It’s definitely a violation,” Momeny said. “It didn’t even occur to me to look up people and see if they mailed in their ballot or voted at a voting center. One would hope that all election workers and anyone with the data would have such discretion, but clearly some people have different judgments about what to keep private and what not.
Let us know what you think…
Davidson said he has been busy this week finalizing the county’s election results, otherwise he would have attended Wednesday’s commission meeting. However, his comments to Utah News Dispatch focused primarily on criticizing McKell and other elected officials who criticized him. He also focused on making his case against mail-in voting and the money he said it would save Utah County taxpayers.
Davidson said this election year, about 76% of Utah County voters returned their ballots through the ballot box, which he said resulted in nearly $45,000 in savings for taxpayers. Of those who did mail in their ballots, he said nearly 79% of them placed a stamp on their envelope, saving the county nearly $29,000.
“Switching to not paying for returns saved Utah County taxpayers approximately $73,000 this election cycle,” he said. “Those who didn’t put the stamp on cost Utah County taxpayers $6,600. I attribute a large majority of that to Mike McKell.”
Utah County’s total 2024 budget includes more than $133 million in revenue, according to the U.S. government provincial accountant.
McKell said he is not focused on Davidson or “this side issue,” which he said “takes away from the fact that we need to conduct elections fairly and that voters have the right to a secret ballot.”
“That’s my focus,” he said. “My focus is not on Aaron Davidson. My focus is that we conduct the elections efficiently and that we have the privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.”
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
