SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah laboratory is now working with the CDC to prepare for potential virus outbreaks in the future. Their first task focuses on testing for avian influenza, also known as bird flu.

ARUP Laboratory applied for a grant with the CDC and was accepted, along with four other labs, to be contracted over the next five years.

Right now the lab is working to develop a test for the bird flu in case it is needed in the future.

This agreement comes after health officials discovered the 14th human case of bird flu in the U.S. in Missouri. The first case in the U.S. with no known source of the virus.

“The idea is we’re going to be ahead of the curve this time,” said Benjamin Bradley, MD, PhD, medical director for virology at ARUP Laboratory.

There is no current threat of the bird flu becoming a pandemic, as there is no evidence of human-to-human spread. However, the purpose behind CDC and commercial lab partnerships is to be prepared for any situation.

“We’re going to start developing these things early and have that infrastructure in place so that if we do have that instance where this becomes a bigger public health threat than it is right now, we have that test developed and ready to scale,” explained Bradley.

Beyond the bird flu

The agreement between ARUP Labs and the CDC can extend beyond the bird flu.

‘The idea is that over the next five years or so, if the CDC sees a need for additional testing for certain pathogens they can reach out to us,” said Bradley.

Bradley said early preparation for potential pandemic situations is one of the smartest things to be doing.

“In the relative scope of things, this is a minor amount of work, a minor amount of time to develop. But it could provide us such a huge protection at a national scale in responding,” said Bradley.

This initial grant is part of a larger series of potential grants the CDC may offer ARUP in the future.

“To be able to take on these grants for the CDC is a great opportunity for us to show… Salt Lake and the greater community the role that we can play in improving our responses to public health threats. I think it’s something we should really be proud of,” said Bradley.

Additional labs partnered with the CDC include Quest Diagnostics, Labcorp, Aegis Sciences, and Ginkgo Bioworks.

ARUP Laboratories is a nonprofit enterprise of the University of Utah and its Department of Pathology, as well as a national reference laboratory.

Read More:

Utah men’s basketball knows what its schedule will look like during its first season in the Big 12 Conference.

The Runnin’ Utes announced their nonconference portion of the 2024-25 schedule on Monday, giving a glimpse at who Utah will face before the grind of league play begins in arguably the nation’s top men’s basketball conference.

Utah basketball’s nonconference schedule, 2024-25 season

Nov. 4 — Alcorn State

Nov. 7 — Central Arkansas

Nov. 12 — Queens

Nov. 17 — vs. Mississippi State*

Nov. 22 — Utah Tech

Nov. 26 — Mississippi Valley State&

Nov. 30 — Eastern Washington&

Dec. 7 — Saint Mary’s

Dec. 14 — Radford

Dec. 17 — Florida A&M

Dec. 21 — vs. Iowa^

* at Landers Center (Southaven, Mississippi)

& Mountain to Sea Showcase (at Huntsman Center)

^ at Sanford Pentagon (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)

3 things that stand out about Utah’s nonconference schedule

Utah has a home schedule tailor made for wins, not as much for a resume builder

The Utes should be heavy favorites in all but one of their home games during the nonconference portion of the schedule — the lone exception is the matchup with Saint Mary’s.

The other eight schools Utah will face in the Huntsman Center before mid-December are all ranked No. 281 or worse in Bart Torvik’s preseason rankings for the 2024-25 college basketball season.

The Gaels, meanwhile, will provide a stiff challenge — they are ranked No. 38 and are coming off three straight NCAA Tournament appearances.

Last year, Utah went to Moraga, California, and beat Saint Mary’s on its home court, but wasn’t able to build off that impressive win the rest of the year.

This time, the Utes will have the chance to beat the Gaels again, this time at home — and again, that game looks like it will be an important one for the resume.

The two trips out of state will challenge the Utes

While it’s been eight years and counting since Utah last made the NCAA Tournament, their two neutral-site opponents have NCAA experience much more recently.

A win over one — or both — would bolster the Utes’ NCAA resume ahead of Big 12 play.

First, the Utes will face Mississippi State on No. 17 at Landers Center in Southaven, Mississippi.

Then, Utah will wrap up its nonleague slate with a matchup against Iowa at Sanford Pentagon in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on Dec. 21.

Mississippi State is No. 22 in Torvik’s preseason rankings, while Iowa is No. 45.

Mississippi State has made it to the NCAA Tournament the past two seasons, where it has lost in its opening game each time — in the First Four two years ago, then in the first round last year.

There is some recent experience between the Utes and Bulldogs: two years ago, Mississippi State edged Utah 52-49 in the Ft. Myers Tip-Off championship game.

This is the first of a two-game agreement between Utah and Mississippi State — the Bulldogs will face the Utes at the Delta Center on Dec. 13, 2025.

Iowa, meanwhile, has played in the NCAA Tournament four of the past five seasons.

The Utes and Hawkeyes met in the NIT second round last year, with Utah beating Iowa 91-82 at the Huntsman Center.

The nonconference schedule gives Utah a chance to mesh at home

Nine of Utah’s 11 out-of-conference games will be played at home in the Huntsman Center.

Last season, the Utes went 6-0 at the Huntsman Center in nonconference play, and that set the tone as the Utes ended up going 17-2 on their home court during the season.

With the amount of roster turnover the Utes are experiencing this year, not to mention the coaching staff changes, the heavy dose of home games will hopefully help Utah find ways to mesh together before the meat of the schedule, Big 12 play, hits.

The Utes only return four scholarship players — a fifth if you count former walk-on Jayden Teat — and brought in seven Division I transfers. A home-heavy schedule to start the year should help as the team tries to build chemistry early in the year.

What does Utah’s Big 12 conference schedule look like?

Exact dates have not been set for the 20-game Utes’ Big 12 schedule.

The league, though, has announced the scheduling matrix for each team.

The highlight for Utah will be hosting blue blood program Kansas at the Huntsman Center.

Here’s a look at the Utes’ Big 12 opponent matrix for the upcoming season:

• Home-and-away: Baylor, BYU, Cincinnati, Oklahoma State, West Virginia
• Home-only: Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Tech
• Away-only: Arizona, UCF, Houston, Iowa State, TCU

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.