Critical gaps in how Utah voter privacy requests are denied
Apr 24, 2026, 3:01 PM | Updated: 4:19 pm
Stacks of voter privacy request forms sit in the Utah County Clerk’s Office, where hundreds of applications remain under review. (Jack Grimm, KSL)
(Jack Grimm, KSL)
SALT LAKE CITY — More than a million Utah voters could see their personal voter information become public unless they act before a May 6, 2026, deadline, following changes to the state’s election code under SB153.
But a KSL Investigates analysis of county data, internal documents and interviews with election officials shows the process for keeping that information private is not consistent across the state, raising concerns about uneven access to protections.
Under the updated law, many voter registration records are now considered public unless a voter qualifies for additional protections and submits a request. County clerks are tasked with reviewing those applications, and how they do that varies.
Who qualifies for voter privacy protections?
Under the amended election code, a voter may request their information be classified as private if they meet certain criteria or live with someone who does.
Those categories include:
- A current law enforcement officer.
- A survivor of domestic violence or dating violence.
- A member of the armed forces.
- A person with an active protective order.
- A voter who lives with someone who qualifies under one of these categories.
For some applicants, the law requires an affidavit stating that the information provided is true.
Differences in approval rates and review standards
Data compiled from four counties shows variation in how voter privacy requests are handled, including approval rates and how denials are defined. Utah County had the highest denial rate at 15%, nearly twice as high as Cache County. Cache County’s rate is closer to 7% when accounting for incomplete forms and eligibility issues.
Denial rates for voter privacy requests vary across four Utah counties, with Utah County reporting the highest rate at about 15% — nearly double Cache County’s rate of about 7%. Differences reflect how counties review applications and define denials. (KSL)
Utah County Clerk Aaron Davidson said he personally reviews each application, and calls voters about applications he believes may not qualify.
“I don’t approve it just because they check one of the boxes,” Davidson said.
Utah County Clerk Aaron Davidson shows stacks of voter privacy request forms awaiting review in his office. (Jack Grimm, KSL)
Davidson said some applicants claim eligibility without meeting statutory requirements, prompting follow-up.
“If they provided no indication as to why they checked that, I do give them a call before I approve it,” he said.
He also described ambiguity in the law.
“It’s not a black and white. There’s a lot of gray area in this,” Davidson said.
Missing affidavits leave applications unresolved
One issue affecting applications — particularly in Utah County — is missing affidavits. The law requires some voters to submit a sworn statement affirming their eligibility, but earlier versions of the application form did not include that requirement.
A voter privacy request form highlights the affidavit required under Utah law for some applicants seeking to keep their information private. (Mark Less, KSL)
Davidson provided KSL Investigates with a copy of the most recent version of the at-risk designation form , which shows the affidavit above the signature as well as an adjustment to the category section for voters to choose from.
In Utah County, hundreds of applications remain on hold as a result. According to county data, roughly 380 forms are considered deficient and pending further guidance, as shown in internal tracking documents.
Davidson said the lack of direction from the state has contributed to the backlog.
“I don’t feel like I’ve gotten enough instruction from the Lieutenant Governor’s office,” he said.
Other counties appear to be handling earlier versions of the form differently, contributing to inconsistent outcomes.
Counties interpret law differently
Cache County Clerk Bryson J. Behm said his office has taken a more flexible approach, including accepting earlier versions of the form and multiple types of signatures
“We accept both. We try to get a wet signature when possible, but there is nothing in code that prohibits an electric signature,” Behm said.
“As for earlier versions of the form, yes, we accepted the old forms,” Behm added.
Behm said his office aims to avoid unnecessary barriers.
“Our office has generally taken the approach of not placing unnecessary barriers in front of voters making the request in good faith,” he said.
He also pointed to vague language in the statute.
“The statutory definition of ‘public figure’ is very vague,” Behm said.
Salt Lake County has taken a stricter approach to signatures. Chief Deputy Clerk Nikila Venugopal said voters must provide what the county considers a valid “wet signature.”
“Finger-drawn app signatures are acceptable, but typed Adobe digital signatures are not,” Venugopal said, adding that voters who submit invalid signatures are asked to resubmit.
Lawmakers acknowledge differences
The bill’s sponsors, Sen. John Johnson, R-North Ogden and Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, said the variation in how counties are applying the law was not the intended outcome.
“Technically under the law, it would be up to the clerks to make that determination,” Johnson said.
“I didn’t think it would be that different between the counties, quite frankly,” he added.
Rep. Trevor Lee also said lawmakers expected a more uniform rollout.
“I never had looked or intended that a different area would have more or less than others,” Lee said.
Utah Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, speaks about the voter privacy bill that shifted how personal voter information is classified across the state. (Istvan Bartos, KSL)
“If we’re looking at different standards right now and the clerks aren’t all going in line with maybe what should be happening, then of course you’re probably going to get some different numbers,” Lee said.
Deadline approaching amid uncertainty
With the May 6 deadline approaching, thousands of applications remain under review statewide. Counties are also not categorizing denials and incomplete applications in the same way, making direct comparisons difficult.
The result is a system where a voter’s ability to keep their information private may depend on where they live.
For voters still waiting on decisions, the timeline is tightening, with questions remaining about how consistently the law will ultimately be applied across Utah.
Have you experienced something you think just isn’t right? The KSL Investigators want to help. Submit your tip at investigates@ksl.com or 385-707-6153 so we can get working for you.
Domestic violence resources
If you or someone you know is going through abuse, help is available.
- The Utah Domestic Violence Coalition operates a confidential statewide, 24-hour domestic abuse hotline at 1-800-897-LINK (5465).
- Resources are also available online at the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition website.
- YWCA Women in Jeopardy program: 801-537-8600
- Utah’s statewide child abuse and neglect hotline: 1-855-323-DCFS (3237)
- National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233
Other reading: Here’s what is at stake during Saturday’s GOP and Democratic nominating conventions
This story was adapted from a TV broadcast script using artificial intelligence. Every story, including those adapted with AI, is reviewed by a human editor before publication to ensure that KSL’s editorial standards are upheld.
