Natalie Clawson's banner
Natalie Clawson's profile picture

Natalie Clawson

@NatalieforUtah3,791 subscribers

Attorney • Constitutional Conservative • Wife • Mother • Former Candidate for Lieutenant Governor with @phil_lyman

Videos

NatalieforUtah's profile picture

Very concerning. In the first round of review, a district court judge ruled in favor of the lieutenant governor’s Motion to Dismiss our case to view the nomination petition of Spencer Cox. If left unappealed this would set a dangerous new precedent to allow the LG to continue to conceal the names on a nomination petition. Not only did the legislative auditor find Cox was short on signatures, but now the Court has ruled that we can’t even see the full petition. We are planning to appeal this case. It must be appealed. Four critical errors and omissions in the Court’s holding: 1. The Court failed to recognize that we are seeking access to view a nominating petition. A petition is not a protected document under state code. No other petition signers are given anonymity. 2. The Court puts a lot of weight on the LG’s argument that the signer’s name should be private. However, it never addresses why it is ok for a different standard to be applied to the governor’s signatures than to signers of initiatives, referendums, and other candidates’ nominating petition forms. The court failed to address why the LG’s office is able to selectively choose which names to conceal. If you signed the flag initiative, your name was published on the LG’s website even if you were a private or withheld voter. Inexplicably, the LG’s Office allowed access to view other candidates’ nomination petition forms. 3. The Court said it “inferred” that the intent of the Legislature was to hide these private names on a petition packet. However, the court did not need to “infer” the legislators’ intent. It is clearly written in state code that private voters’ information will be available to “candidates” and “political parties.” Why did the court fail to recognize the expressed intent of the legislators to make sure that private names are available to candidates? It is clearly written in the same section of code that the judge cited, but failed to include. The section of code saying that the candidate should have access to view private names was omitted in both the LG’s argument and by the judge. This omission is very concerning. 4. The Court said voters “specifically requested that their personal identifying information be kept private while they participate in the signature gathering process.” Where did this happen?? This language is not in state code, on the voter registration, or on the nominating petition. This language does not exist. #utpol, #PhilLyman #electiontransparency, #exposecorruption

Natalie Clawson

47,405 次观看 • 1 年前

没有更多内容可加载