Utah Rep. Phil Lyman of the 69th District and Salt Lake County Auditor Chris Harding met Thursday, Nov. 14 at Hidden Peaks Coffee and Roasting Co. in Salt Lake City for a debate on election transparency and signature verification audits leading up to the previous 2024 Utah election.
Moderated by Jon Harvey and broadcasted live on the social media platform Rumble, the event sought to settle a disagreement between Lyman and Harding surrounding Gov. Spencer Cox’s ballot qualification and the broader integrity of the state’s election process.
Lyman criticized the refusal to provide access to Cox’s signature packets, arguing it undermines transparency.
“When we ask to see Spencer Cox’s packets, the answer is no. The public deserves to know if their elected officials followed the law. Transparency is non-negotiable,” he said.
Lyman expanded on his concerns.
“This isn’t just about one election. The system is fundamentally flawed, and my case aims to address the lack of accountability in how signatures and votes are handled,” Lyman said.
Harding, defending the state’s audit process, emphasized that statistical sampling provides a reasonable level of assurance without requiring absolute certainty.
“Auditing provides reasonable assurance, not absolute certainty,” Harding said. “The state auditor’s report concluded it was statistically likely that candidates, including Cox, met the required thresholds. That’s standard for audits, and it ensures efficiency and fairness.”
Both Lyman and Harding referenced the conclusion of the Utah State Auditor John Dougall’s limited review report.
“Based on the statistical sampling of validated signatures within our primary sub-population of validated signatures for voters with privacy protection as well as consideration of the secondary population of uncounted signatures, we conclude that it is statistically likely each of these candidates met the statutory threshold of required valid signatures,” the report stated.
Harvey questioned Harding on the limitations of statistical assurance, asking whether it provided sufficient evidence to support candidates’ qualifications.
“So, Chris, you mentioned statistically qualified,” Harvey said. “The statistics, to me, mean really nothing. It means absolutely nothing. There’s a process where you are 100% sure.”
Harding responded by emphasizing that audits are designed to provide "reasonable assurance, not an absolute conclusion."
Lyman, however, expressed skepticism about the audit’s phrasing, arguing it left room for doubt.
“Statistically, it is possible that each candidate may have fallen short of the statutory requirements you quoted earlier here, where it says candidates fulfilled the requirements that were given to them,” he said.
He also criticized the implications of the audit findings.
“The results of Spencer Cox’s signatures are really significant,” Lyman said. “They don’t want to cast dispersion onto the governor. They want to make sure that the state comes out of this looking good, even though he may not have got his signatures.”
Harding acknowledged the importance of transparency but warned against over-expanding government auditing oversight.
“I agree, we need more transparency in the government,” he said. “If it was up to Chris Harding ... I try and make the legislature say you should hire every auditor for every government worker and we should follow him around. But the government will grow, and it could be a catastrophe.”
Lyman said his concerns are centered on election fairness.
“I guess on a bigger scale, what we’re really fighting is cheating,” he said. “If somebody is going to cheat, then they then they would do all of these things that we're seeing happening.”
Harvey echoed Lyman’s call for more openness.
“All you got to do is learn all they need to do is let us see the ... signatures. We don’t need to know what to do. Of course, we can count, and we can see, but the problem is the transparency,” Harvey said.
Harding concluded by emphasizing the challenge of balancing voter privacy with accountability, expressing optimism for improvement.
“We’ve got to figure it out to where this isn’t the kind of assurance that they’re trying to give the public,” Harding said. “We should all be 100% sure that what happened happened. I don’t know if we’re going to get it from this.”
Lyman ended by expressing frustration with the current audit process.
“I don’t know we're accomplishing anything by going back and forth on that point,” he said. “The audit report says what it says, and in my mind, it clearly says that he’s short, no matter how you slice those numbers. If nothing else, this has to say we need better transparency and accountability in our elections.”
To learn more on this topic, see the Utah Legislature's signature verification audit report.