The request by Phil Lyman to view the unredacted signatures is denied by a Utah court

Salt Lake City, Utah – State Representative Phil Lyman, who is running for governor of Utah, has filed a case in the courts of Utah, demanding to inspect the signatures of his opponents’ campaigns that have not been redacted. These signatures include those that aided in the inclusion of incumbent Governor Spencer Cox and Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson on the ballot. However, his request was turned down by the judge on Friday.

“The Court heard oral arguments on the Motion on July 18, 2024, at which time neither party sought to supplement the record with testimony or other evidence. Having carefully considered the papers and arguments of counsel, the Court respectfully DENIES the Motion,” a filing in the Third Judicial Court states.

Lyman and his campaign had submitted a formal notice asking for election returns for all 29 counties in Utah. The notice included a request for cast vote records (CVR), tabulator information, ballot photos, tabulator tapes, and backup project databases.

The filing denying Lyman’s motion states that he and his campaign sought “an unredacted list of signors to the Signature Packets with their accompanying personal identifying information, including name, date of signature, address, age or birthdate, voter identification number, and whether the signature was verified,” as well as “a sufficient opportunity to inspect the unredacted Signature Packets, so they may evaluate and, if necessary, challenge the signatures gathered by these competing campaigns before the July 22, 2024, statewide canvassing deadline.”

To be more specific, this meant that signature packets were being sent out for the campaigns of Spencer Cox/Deidre Henderson, Brad Wilson, and Derek Brown, all of whom are candidates for office during the election cycle of 2024. Lyman stated that the lawsuit was filed in order to protect the “right to transparency” of the people of Utah and to maintain the integrity of the process of collecting signatures.

Rules 65A of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure stipulate that in order for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to be imposed, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they have met all four of the following conditions:

1. There is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim.
2. The applicant will suffer irreparable harm unless the order or injunction issues.
3. The threatened injury to the applicant outweighs whatever damage the proposed order or injunction may cause the party restrained or enjoined.
4. The order or injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest.

According to the court, irreparable harm is often considered to be the most crucial aspect that needs to be established. Because the plaintiff is required to demonstrate that the injury is irreparable, they are not permitted to rely on harms that are excessively hypothetical.

After careful consideration, the court came to the conclusion that Lyman’s petitions did not constitute sufficient grounds for alleging “a generalized harm when requesting extraordinary relief, such as a preliminary injunction.”

One week after the night of the primary election in Utah, Lyman stated that he had no intention of conceding, stating that the state of Utah deserved a “fair election.” Lyman’s lawsuit was a further demonstration of his determination to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election.

“Confidence in our elections is crucial,” Lyman said in a statement on July 8. “Continued obstruction by Lieutenant Governor Henderson, which makes it impossible to independently verify Cox/Henderson’s signature packets, does nothing to promote transparency and faith in our elections. We believe this action is essential to ensure the integrity of this important process.”

Lyman asserted that he has repeatedly asked for information on elections, both in the year 2020 and in the year 2024, but those requests have been consistently ignored.

Despite Lyman’s reservations, experts assert that the signatures that are required to be placed on a ballot are rigorously vetted in the same manner as a signature that would be placed on a ballot that is mailed in. In an earlier interview, Zoe Nemerever, an assistant professor of political science at Utah Valley University, stated that signatures would be regarded legitimate if they were verified.

“They’re not hokey signatures, even if they’re collected by paid signature gatherers,” she said. “They’re still legitimate citizens from the correct district’s signatures.”