Spencer Cox rigged his own election!

They claimed they would not be administering their own election, yet micro-managed it.

The website of Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson announced on March 5^th, 2024:

“Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson has designated Greg Bell to serve as an independent advisor for any complaints that may arise during the 2024 gubernatorial election. Because she is up for re-election this year as the running mate to Gov. Spencer Cox, Lt. Gov. Henderson is sequestering herself from questions arising in their race.”

It then quoted Henderson saying:

“This precautionary measure is an extra effort to prevent any perceived or actual bias in the gubernatorial election.”

Despite this appropriate measure, repeatedly, when the executive branch intervened or gave directions for elections issues, even those related to the governors race, it came from Deidre Henderson, not Greg Bell. We never saw a single example of Mr. Bell filling this role for Henderson.

Greg Bell’s MIA status became something of a joke.

Because LG Deidre Henderson did NOT actually “(sequester) herself from questions arising in their race,” when their opponent, Phil Lyman, submits GRAMA requests (Utah version of Freedom of Information Act) regarding Henderson’s actions, those requests must be submitted to Henderson!

However, a GRAMA request did uncover the fact that they cannot find any contract between Henderson and Bell:

Was Deidre Henderson’s announcement regarding the designation of Greg Bell only for show? Did Henderson ever actually intend to step away from administering her own election?

As Phil Lyman scolded LG Henderson:
“You can be a player in the game
or you can be a referee,
but you can’t be both!“

According to Utah Republican Party bylaws, the ONLY way to become a Republican candidate in the November general election is to get a sufficient number of votes from the Republican caucus convention. If two candidates get over 40% of the votes, but not exceeding 60%, they may face each other in a primary election prior to the general election. But if a candidate gets 60% or more, they automatically become THE Republican candidate and go directly on the ballot for the November election.

Even Governor Cox admits this fact, saying “If you get 60% of those delegates (votes) you’re the nominee. PERIOD! End of Story. If you get 60%, you’re on the ballot in November as a Republican. So if I get 60%, I’m on the ballot. I don’t have to have a primary.“

Yet, caucus delegates, who take months to study and interview candidates, overwhelmingly voted for Cox’s opponent, Phil Lyman, giving him over 67% of the vote. Convention delegates clearly rejected Cox & Henderson after Cox insulted them, and told them he doesn’t need their votes!

According to Republican bylaws, Phil Lyman was now
THE Republican candidate for governor
and should go directly to the November ballot.

So, why was Phil Lyman not on the ballot in November?

Because Cox and Henderson were administering their own election. Keep reading to learn how they manipulated the process to ensure their victory.

Cox and Henderson falsely claimed that a 2014 bill known as SB54 gave them a second chance to defeat Phil Lyman, after being defeated by him in a landslide at the nominating convention.

As Tracie Halvorsen posted below, when the Lyman campaign filed a legal challenge against Cox illegally placing himself on the ballot, one governor-appointed judge dismissed the case without hearing its merits, based upon a misrepresentation of Utah code.

The boxed section of the image below shows Justice Durrant’s excuse for dismissing Lyman’s case. The portion above the box shows the section of code he cited does not apply to a nomination for the Republican Party!

As we covered in Section 2, Cox admitted that, having more than 60% of the nominating convention vote, Phil Lyman should be THE Republican candidate for governor. Claiming he could place himself on the ballot due to SB54 is a fraud, even if allowed by a governor-appointed judge.

But pretending SB54 was a valid route for a “second chance” to go up against Phil Lyman, Cox and Henderson placed all their hope in qualifying as candidates via the signature gathering process.

According to SB54, in order to qualify as statewide candidates, Cox and Henderson needed to submit 28,000 valid signatures from registered voters across the state. Such signatures need to be verified by county clerks offices, and typically, a significant number are rejected.

For example, in 2020, 28% of Cox’s signatures were rejected, while 55% of Jon Huntsman’s signatures were ​rejected. Mitt Romney’s 2018 Senate race had 40% rejected (with a campaign staffer admitting, that was much lower ​than the average!)

In 2020, with a signature rejection rate lower than the others mentioned, Cox needed to submit a total of almost 39,000 signatures in order to have 28,000 that cleared validation. Surprisingly, on February 20th, 2024, having submitted about 37,000, and before any of his signatures had been verified, Cox announced they had submitted enough to reach the required 28,000 signatures.

37,000 submitted signatures, based on his 2020 signature rejection rate, would mean he would have fewer than 27,000 valid signatures. Apparently, Cox was counting on having a lower rejection rate than in 2020.

Why was he so confident that his signature rejection rate
would be notably lower than in 2020?

Perhaps it is because he hand-picked only ONE county clerk to validate all of their signatures. Normally, with signature gathering processes, each county clerk validates signatures gathered in their respective counties.

Note: No other candidate gets the privilege
of hand-picking who validates their signatures!

This is exactly the type of “perceived or actual bias in the gubernatorial election” that Henderson claimed she would prevent by not administering her own election.

Henderson took advantage of her position as election administrators to hand-pick Davis County Clerk Brian McKenzie to validate their signatures, and those of all other statewide races. Early on in the signature verification process, it was discovered that several thousand of Cox’s signatures had serious issues and entire packets of signatures were sent to the Attorney General’s office for investigation.

Cox was left with only 32,883 to be verified. He now needed a MUCH lower rejection rate for the remaining signatures. True to his trust, Brian McKenzie’s office delivered the very low signature rejection rate that Cox was counting on (rejecting only 14.8%).

However, McKenzie fumbled other key aspects of the task.

No valid contract was in place.

Despite writing up a contract for this task, it was never made valid with the appropriate signatures which the contract itself declares must be in place.
This image from page 1 of the contract, declares when the contract would become effective:

The next image from the signatures page shows three problems with the signatures. Two of the signatures were added to the contract after the work had been completed (highlighted in yellow). But in the red box, no signature was ever added from “an attorney authorized to represent the State,” as required in the above image.

Simply, Henderson contracted the work of signature verification, but never had a valid contract, even after the fact.

Unqualified temp staff

While Utah law requires signature verifying staff to complete ongoing training and certification, GRAMA information requests have revealed McKenzie’s staff did not have the required training and certifications. (See the video below, starting at 17:56, for more detail on this)

No contract.

Incomplete certification training.

But McKenzie delivered the extraordinarily low
signature rejection rate that Cox was counting on.

Questions raised about the validity of Cox’s signatures

Phil Lyman began raising questions about the validity of Cox’s signatures when he discovered the signature gathering company Cox had hired was under criminal investigation in Washington County for fraudulent signatures. Additionally, he noted that Cox had counted on an unusually low signature rejection rate, suggesting that Cox had likely not submitted enough signatures.

It was convenient for Cox and Henderson that their office held the records of all signatures submitted by candidates.

When Lyman requested copies of the signature files, Henderson’s office responded by providing spreadsheets with around 40% of the data redacted! Instead of names, addresses, and other identifying information, thousands of signature records simply said “withheld” or “private.” This made it impossible for Lyman to verify if Cox had really submitted 28,000 valid signatures.

Henderson claimed that voter information privacy laws prevented them from releasing withheld and private voter information. That is false.

As Henderson’s Utah Director of Elections, Ryan Cowley testifies in the following video, Utah law clearly states that “withheld” or “private” voter data is not to be withheld from candidates for public office.

Signature lists requests for other candidates submitted just prior to Lyman’s request were granted without any data withheld. It wasn’t until people began asking for COX’S signature records that Henderson illegally started hiding the data.

This cover-up confirmed that Cox and Henderson were intentionally and unlawfully hiding their signature data. The Lyman camp ramped up the pressure, knowing they had found a serious problem in Cox’s candidacy!

If Cox did not submit
28,000 VALID signatures,
he was not a valid candidate!

The Legislative Audit

After months of the Lyman camp challenging Cox to release the data, and grassroots pressure for independent audits of Cox’s signatures, the Utah Legislature released a legislative audit on October 15th.

The audit did a randomized sampling of 1,000 signatures, and discovered that Davis County Clerk Brian McKenzie’s team validated many invalid signatures from Cox’s signature submission.

As stated in the report (see image below), a sample size of 380 would produce a 95% confidence level. Increasing the sample size to 1,000 increases the confidence level to 99.81% certainty that Cox fell short of 28,000 valid signatures!

It is a statistical certainty that
Cox did not qualify to be on the ballot!

Yet, inexplicably, the audit tried to excuse Cox for not meeting the required threshold, making the vague claim that “Candidates fulfilled the requirements given to them.”

The primary requirement was to submit 28,000 valid signatures.

Again, if Cox did not submit 28,000 VALID signatures,
he was not a valid candidate and should not have been on the ballot!

If he was not a valid candidate,
the election was a fraud and he did not legitimately win re-election!

Media Blackout

None of the above incriminating information was covered by any of the “main-stream” media of Utah. Where was the coverage of the following?

• Recusing themselves from running their own election, yet still running it.
• Hand-picking McKenzie to lead their signature verification.
• McKenzie never having a contract to do signature verification.
• McKenzie staff was not certified for signature verification.
• Cox’s unusually low signature rejection rate.
• Henderson illegally blocking access to their signatures.
• Cox failing to submit 28,000 qualified signatures.
• Illegally placing themselves on the ballot

Media Publishing Lies

Instead of reporting that the Legislative Audit concluded with virtual certainty that Cox did not submit 28,000 valid signatures, and is not a valid candidate, the media provided cover for Cox’s ineligibility:

Honest reporting would state that Cox DID NOT QUALIFY to be on the ballot! He did not submit 28,000 valid signatures, and therefore, he was not a valid candidate!

Instead of honest reporting, Utah Mainstream Media is determined to keep Utahns in the dark and conceal Cox’s fraud.

The Other Lesson From The Legislative Audit

In an effort to suggest there was no intentional wrong-doing, the audit report explained away the errors, saying:

• “Such errors are likely the product of subjective signature verification standards and human error”
• “The standards to verify the actual signatures are subjective; that subjectivity contributed to error rates in signature verification”
• “Another potential factor is the subjective nature of signature verification standards.”

Notably, LG Deidre Henderson’s appendix to the audit echoed this earth-shattering position:
“The signature errors identified in the audit were likely due to the subjective nature of the signature verification process.”

The signature verification process is THE PROCESS by which our mail-in ballots and early voting ballots are checked for validity! If that process is “subjective in nature” then it isn’t a secure, reliable validation process!

Henderson repeatedly insists our election system is “the gold standard” of election security and ran a massive ad campaign of billboards and social media ads trying to convince Utahns of how secure our elections are.

LG Henderson inadvertently undermined all of those efforts to convince Utahns that our elections are “safe and secure” by admitting “the subjective nature of the signature verification process!”

If the signature verification process is
“subjective” and unreliable,

OUR EARLY VOTING PROCESS IS NOT SECURE!

This is what happens when our early voting process is not secure, and the governor’s office administers their own election!

In an effort to build public trust and transparency in our elections, Utah County Clerk Aaron Davidson commissioned a statistical report from the June 2024 primary election, not knowing what he would find. The report showed what appears to be very significant outside influence on two of the races.

Watch the video above or read below to learn
what the statistical report uncovered.

The first chart below is what a normal race looks like. Left to right represents a timeline for the three weeks leading up to election day, and the small section of gray dots at the right is election day data. The “heartbeat” line above and below the dots represents 3 standard deviations, which statistically, contains 99.7% of all the data in a normal distribution. Each of the dots represents a batch of ballots being processed (typically around 250 ballots). If 30% of the votes in the batch are in favor of the candidate featured on the chart, the dot will appear on the 30% line.

In this chart, it is showing what percentage of each batch had voted for Ricky Hatch. You’ll notice within around the first 10% of ballots being processed, you can fairly accurately predict the end result of this race. It very quickly settled in around the eventual average of 42% voting for Hatch. Then, on election day, the average dropped slightly to 38% for Hatch. Ballots supporting Hatch and those supporting his opponent (Tina Cannon) came in randomly and relatively evenly throughout the election.

That is how a normal race looks, with no outside manipulation.

This next chart is dramatically different. In the Cox vs. Lyman race, there was a large dump of ballots for Cox in the first week, mostly from mail-in ballots (blue dots). It was about 50/50 during the second week, and more in favor of Lyman in the 3rd week, with a small surge of mail-in ballots for Cox just before election day. Early voting gives Cox 53% of the vote.

Obviously, without some form of coordination or manipulation, voters for a particular candidate don’t naturally vote in surges and retractions. Natural voting patterns are random and relatively evenly dispersed (as in the previous chart).

This is pattern is unnatural.

But most surprising is the massive shift on election day, with Cox only getting 21% of the in-person votes. Having so much of the data outside of 3 standard deviations is concerning, but the shift on election day from Cox getting 53% to getting 21% represents over 9 standard deviations.

This strikingly manipulated pattern occurred in only one other race in the report; the race of John Curtis vs. Trent Staggs. Notice how it almost perfectly matches the unnatural pattern found in the Cox vs. Lyman race, including the massive drop in support for Curtis from in-person voters on election day.

In-person voting is almost totally secure. People don’t show up in person and show ID to stuff the ballot box with extra ballots. To find out exactly why there were so many early votes for Cox, and so few in the 3rd week and on election day, we need a full investigation into the data.

Without a deeper investigation into the data, it is not possible to pinpoint the source of this manipulation of data. But it is clear this election was tampered with.

Considering the earlier revelation from LG Henderson and the Legislative Audit that our mail-in ballot and drop box ballot verification system is not secure, it is really no surprise that the mail-in and drop box data is a mess.

Blocking access to public election data.

Perhaps this is why LG Henderson predicted there would be a rise in election fraud claims in Utah and was so worried about county clerks potentially releasing election data. About one month after the primary election, she sent the following letter to all county clerks of Utah, erroneously claiming it was illegal to release cast vote record data.

LG Henderson’s letter is self-contradictory. In the second paragraph, the statement from the judge says, if you don’t like our cover-up of election data, the “remedy is with the legislature.” But then Henderson contradicts this by saying “The remedy (is) through the courts.” Sounds like an endless circle, never leading to a remedy!

LG Henderson’s claim that “election returns are not public records . . . and thus not subject to GRAMA” is not supported in the cited section of Election Code 20A-4-202 which simply says “the legislative auditor general may make and keep copies of ballots or election returns as part of a legislative audit . . . (and a legislative auditor created copy) is not a record, and not subject to disclosure (under GRAMA).”

So, if the legislative auditor general makes copies of ballots or election returns as part of a legislative audit, THAT is not subject to release via a GRAMA request. Election returns described in the rest of this section of code are specifically NOT excluded from GRAMA requests and county clerks are within the law to make them public.

Further, Judge Pullan made the bizarre claim, “By restricting access to these records, the Election Code preserves the integrity of (our election). . . . In the absence of these restrictions, the door to fraud and corruption would be left wide open.”

He couldn’t be more wrong! Transparency, not cover-up, preserves election integrity.

To correct Pullan’s statement, “In the absence of TRANSPARENCY, the door to fraud and corruption would be left wide open.”

It is for this very reason that most states have laws requiring cast vote records to be made public! For example, click here to see the law in Texas, where they have a deadline for making such records available to the public!

Utah has been identified as one of three states with the least election transparency! They don’t want the public seeing clear election manipulation, as shown at the beginning of this section.

Telling Utahns to trust elections and to blindly accept the results no matter what, has done little to increase public trust in elections, as this recent KUTV News poll indicates:

“Trust in our elections” is not a virtue, transparency is. Transparency, not cover-up, is what builds public trust.

Utahns are beginning to recognize why Utah ranks among the lowest of states for election security.

Under the Cox and Henderson administration, they have done everything they could to destroy trust in our elections.

And yet, Cox and Henderson had one more election-interference trick up their sleeves to ensure their re-election!

They cheated Phil Lyman out of his position on the November ballot (due to false application of SB54, Cox’s fake signature verification, questionable primary election results, and election data cover-up), so Phil Lyman was forced to run a write-in campaign.

When the Lyman campaign asked what his supporters needed to write on the ballot to vote for him, Henderson’s staff said they only needed to write “Lyman”.

Based upon this assurance from Henderson’s office, the Lyman campaign built all of their advertising around “Write-In Lyman for Governor!”

The decoy candidate.

Just when you think this election couldn’t get more fraudulent . . . shortly after the filing deadline, the Lyman campaign was sent a copy of the following text messages, informing them that another Lyman had filed to run for governor as a write-in candidate. With another Lyman running as a write-in candidate, voter intent for any votes for “Lyman” would not be clear. All such votes would be thrown out.

The above text from James informed them that Richard Lyman had told him “The Cox campaign is paying him to put his name on the ballot to take votes away from (Phil) Lyman.” Below is a text directly from Richard Lyman, admitting the truth of this scheme.

Predictably, the Cox campaign denied paying Richard Lyman to run for governor, which would be engaging in election interference.

The article below from the Deseret News states, “Cox campaign spokesperson Matt Lusty denied that anyone from the campaign had officially paid to recruit additional “Lyman” candidates.” So, they did so unofficially?

Caught red-handed

Despite their denials, a GRAMA request (Utah’s version of “Freedom of Information Act”) produced this incriminating email. Two days AFTER the filing deadline, Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson personally reached out to Richard Lyman because his filing for a write-in campaign was incomplete.

Apparently, deadlines don’t matter when you are secretly
working for the administrator of the election.

It is clear that LG Henderson was personally involved with registering Richard and Carol Lyman as decoy candidates. Despite completing his application 2 days AFTER the deadline, Richard Lyman and his mother Carol were allowed as write-in candidates. They did no fund-raising and no campaigning. They didn’t even have a website or social media page for their candidacy. As Richard’s co-worker James had stated, it appears they were only there “to take votes away from (Phil) Lyman.”

Deceiving voters

Yet, it gets worse. Just over a week before November election day, Henderson’s office sent out the following email to all Utah voters:

Notice there was no effort to clarify that Phil Lyman was still in the race. Almost no-one had heard of Richard Lyman, or realized this was a different write-in candidate from the very popular Phil Lyman campaign. Most had only heard of “Lyman” and predictably, many Phil Lyman supporters assumed this meant Phil Lyman had dropped out of the race! The Phil Lyman campaign was flooded with messages asking why Phil had quit!?!

Media collusion

To further reinforce the confusion, the dishonest mainstream media published articles announcing the unheard-of candidate Richard Lyman had dropped out, but in every case showed pictures of PHIL LYMAN in these articles!!!

Tricked into changing their vote

Worse still, when Phil Lyman voters went to the polls on election day, and asked for guidance on how to write in Phil Lyman, poll workers at several locations informed them, “Didn’t you hear? Phil Lyman dropped out of the race!” Here is one example of this:

The following is just a small sampling of the hundreds of messages from confused voters:

Phil Lyman still broke records

Despite election interference directly from LG Henderson, the main-stream media, and even many poll workers, Phil Lyman had over 200,000 write-in votes, setting a new United States record for write-in campaigns.

We can only wonder how many thousands more votes Lyman would have received and how many fewer to Cox, if Henderson had not personally escorted a “decoy Lyman” into the race.

Cox and Henderson’s control over their own election sets an alarming precedent and must be stopped! Either We The People rise up and demand this fraud be overturned, or this will become the new “gold standard of elections” for Utah.