Utah Supreme Court Hands Losses to Two GOP Candidates in Contested Races
Utah’s highest court issued rulings that essentially upheld the results of two contested Republican primaries, dealing losses to the GOP candidates who challenged their respective races.
The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republican House candidate Colby Jenkins’ bid to count mail-in ballots he alleged were wrongly excluded from the vote total in the state’s primary for the 2nd Congressional District.
The decision means the approximately 1,171 mail-in ballots cast across five counties in the state’s June 25 Republican primary election likely won’t be counted. A federal lawsuit on the matter is ongoing.
In a separate case, the court rejected a bid from GOP gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman to contest the result of Utah’s primary.
Lyman took issue with the Utah Republican Party (URP)’s nomination process, arguing the party should have automatically named him the official nominee after winning roughly 68% of the vote at the nominating convention (the minimum threshold is 60%).
His lawsuit sought to overturn the primary results, arguing the nominating convention violates Utah election law, and asked the court to name him the official Republican gubernatorial nominee.
The high court said Lyman “has not shown a legal basis for setting aside the 2024 Republican primary election.” The opinion points to Utah election law stipulating that candidates for office “shall be nominated in a regular primary election by direct vote of the people in the manner prescribed by Utah law.”
Jenkins’ petition stems from his defeat in a primary election contest against Celeste Maloy, who won by a narrow margin. The results as of Aug. 5 showed the Trump-endorsed Maloy leading by just 176 votes. The Associated Press called the race for Maloy on Tuesday.
In Jenkins’ case, some ballots cast in the race were rejected because they weren’t postmarked by Utah’s deadline, which requires ballots to be clearly postmarked — or otherwise marked by the post office as being received — before Election Day.
Jenkins argued Utah election officials’ rejection of those votes disenfranchises individuals and violates Utah’s constitution. He asked the court to require that the “untimely” ballots be accepted and counted.
He claimed many of the rejected ballots were in fact mailed before Election Day, but weren’t postmarked because of variations in the U.S. Postal Services’ (USPS) practice for processing mail from different regions.
Some ballots mailed before the June 25 election were postmarked by a Las Vegas facility that processes ballots from southern areas of the state. Jenkins alleged the ballots processed there were postmarked after the election and as a result weren’t counted. Voters in those counties, Jenkins’ petition said, were not informed of postmarking delays that would require them to mail their ballots earlier.
In its Tuesday opinion, the court said Jenkins failed to cite an instance where election officials violated the law. Instead, Jenkins argued the postmark requirement itself is unconstitutional. But he didn’t cite relevant case law or analysis to support his claims, the court explained.
The court also said evidence shows most of the late ballots were not processed in Las Vegas. “Nor does Mr. Jenkins give us anything, in the form of caselaw or argument, that would allow us to conclude that the statutory postmark requirement invites unconstitutional interference with the right to vote.”
Jenkins said the decision “means hundreds of properly cast votes will go uncounted,” the statement said. “This ruling undermines fundamental voting rights and sets a troubling precedent for future elections.” Jenkins said he contacted Maloy to “officially congratulate her on her victory.”
Both cases named Republican Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson as a defendant. In response to the Jenkins ruling, Henderson said: “The primary is over. It is time to move on. For the good of the state, I invite all current and former candidates to graciously accept the results.”
Responding to the court’s rejection of Lyman’s claims, Henderson called his lawsuit “frivolous.”
“For all his talk of election integrity,” the statement said, “Phil Lyman is the only candidate in the state who has actively tried to steal an election by demanding that the Supreme Court crown him the victor of a race he soundly lost. Every Utahn should be appalled by Lyman’s shameful disregard for the rule of law, the state constitution, and the will of the voters.”