SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s Elections Office has found vote discrepancies in Utah County because of a novel in-person voting method, and a high rate of rejected signatures on by mail ballots in the county’s June 25 primary election, their newly released report shows.

The report from the Lieutenant Governor’s Office outlines that at least 19 more ballots were cast than people who signed in to in-person polling locations across Utah county during the Primary.

The discrepancies, the report states, were because of the use of an in-person voting method unique to Utah County implemented by County Clerk, Aaron Davidson called “Fast Cast” that may have allowed voters to turn in more than one ballot.

“The fast cast voting process as implemented in the 2024 primary election lacked key statutory controls and created an environment where fraudulent and/or unauthorized ballots were cast,” the report states.

“We don’t know for a fact that those were fraudulent, but we can’t prove that they weren’t,” Lt. Gov’s Deputy Elections Director Shelly Jackson said.

The review also found other concerning problems, namely that ballot signatures on by-mail ballots were rejected at a rate higher than the statewide average and five times higher than the 2023 primary election.

“I definitely think there was an unnecessary barrier to voting,” Jackson said of the rate at which those signatures were rejected.

Jackson was part of a team of four who reviewed Utah County’s elections and visited the office one week after the primary, July 2.

Davidson’s response

Davidson has told the office, as noted in the report, that voters were properly checked in at the polling locations but did not get their vote histories recorded due to “confusion with poll worker training.” Jackson confirmed that is how Davidson explained what happened.

Davidson also explained to KSL TV why he implemented Fast Cast.

“In-person voting is the most safe and secure way to cast a ballot and make sure it gets counted,” Davidson said. “The fast cast method maintains the verification of showing up in person, showing your ID, signing the poll pad, but not having to wait in line for the next available voting booth.”

“For every ballot that’s cast in person the Clerk’s office does not have to go through the complex very subjective signature verification process which carries a risk of that ballot having to go through the cure process,” he said.

What is “fast cast” voting?

Fast Cast allows voters to fill out their ballots at home and take it to a polling location, but instead of signing their ballot envelope and dropping it off, voters scan it directly into a special tabulation machine after showing their ID at a polling location.

Davidson has been vocal about his distaste for the United States Postal Service to return ballots, pushing voters instead to use dropboxes or to vote in person.

In mid-July, after Washington and Iron counties encountered problems with late postmarks, Davidson wrote on X, “The US Postal Service is no longer verifiable as safe and secure.” Earlier this year, he also shifted the county away from paying for return postage on mail-in ballots.

According to the report, the fast cast system in Lehi, Pleasant Grove and early in-person county polling places had the issues with more ballots cast than voters who checked in.

“This means that 19 votes may have been cast without a voter showing ID or having their signature checked and reviewed by poll workers at the polling location,” the report states.

“Due to the inherent lack of controls in ‘fast cast’ voting and the subsequent noncompliance of Utah election law, the Utah County Clerk’s Office must either abandon the ‘fast cast’ voting method or make significant modifications to bring it into compliance with state code,” the report recommends.

A ‘key security feature disabled’

The reason the tabulation machines allowed for possible fraud, the report states, is because a “key security feature was disabled” in order for these tabulators to read the mail-in ballots.

While Jackson couldn’t discuss the specifics of that safeguard, she said that the tabulation machines were programmed to accept by-mail ballots as opposed to in-person ballots. When a voter votes in person, there is a ballot with a different type of marking on it. That prevents the voter from voting both a by mail and an in person ballot.

“Disabling this would allow for any ballot to be read, creating the potential for multiple ballots to be scanned in by a single voter,” the report states.

“I think any time that you take away safeguards, it is it is a serious matter,” Jackson said. “The machine did have to have that safety feature turned off in order to accept the by-mail ballot versus in-person ballot.”

In total, the report examined 10 polling locations across the county and all but one location had mismatched vote totals with ballots cast.

“‘Fast Cast’ was presented as a way to expedite ballot processing because voters would present ID when submitting their ballot, therefore signature verification would not be performed. However, Utah County still experiences significant delays in ballot processing,” the report states.

It also warns that the fast cast method could create long lines during the general election.

Davidson said the county is already implementing recommendations from the report, including an “overhaul of Fast Cast Voting, weekly trainings on signature verification and improvements to reconciliation procedures.”

High rate of signatures rejected

According to the report, Jackson and the staff also found a high rate of rejected signatures on ballots that were actually valid Utah voters.

“County signature rates were higher than the statewide average and more than five times higher than the 2023 primary election rejection rate,” the report states.

This appears to have led to unnecessary cure letters sent to voters to fix their signatures. The report does not say whether these voters actually returned those cure letters, but anyone who didn’t, wouldn’t have had their vote counted.

One county staff member who was audited during the visit had 25% of the signatures they reviewed rejected, according to the report. It notes that while proper verification is important, staff were “too stringent” with rejecting signatures.

Utah law requires a 1% audit of signature verifications to make sure that ballots cast are actually a registered Utah voter. The report notes that the clerk’s office management acknowledged these high rejection rates during the audit, but “no remedial action was taken.”

“Care must be taken to verify that each vote was cast by the required registered voter, but undue and unnecessary burdens should not be placed on voters,” the report states.

Key findings

In all, the report issued five total findings and subsequent recommendations for Davidson’s office to fix related to in-person voting before November. They are as follows:

• The office did not reconcile the number of voters who checked in at a polling location with the number of ballots cast. Henderson’s office requires this must be done and reviewed for accuracy during the canvass. The report states reconciliation should happen multiple times throughout the day.
• Fast Cast lacked “key statutory controls and created an environment for fraudulent voting.” It bans the method unless key changes are made to make it compliant with state law.
• Some of the staff were too stringent on signature verifications. The office must review signature verification guidelines and implement those.
• Utah County under-utilized the 1% signature audits to provide additional training. The office must review and implement audit policy.
• Utah County has grainy and unclear images of signatures on file. The office should begin updating signatures they have on file.

The report notes that despite the issues raised, Henderson’s office remains “committed to the success of the Utah County Clerk’s Office and staff” and is ready to help implement the changes.

The report notes that each method of voting — in person, dropboxes, and the mail — should be made “accessible and secure” for voters. Jackson also said that Utah County has been receptive to the changes.

“We don’t anticipate these problems to be repeated,” she said.