Utah Supreme Court tosses Lyman’s demand to annul election results

The Utah Supreme Court denied gubernatorial hopeful Phil Lyman’s request to annul the results of the Republican primary he lost against incumbent Gov. Spencer Cox.

Lyman, who earned a spot on the primary ballot with the support of 67.5% of delegate votes during the state’s Republican convention, argued his victory there qualified him to be the nominee in the general election, citing the party’s constitution. The internal bylaws establish that candidates who receive above 60% of votes at the convention can proceed to the general election.

The result reversal, Lyman stated while representing himself in the suit, should extend to other Republican candidates who received over 60% of votes in the convention.

Denying him the chance to argue his case before the justices, the Utah Supreme Court said Lyman’s demands “fail for both procedural and substantive reasons.”

Lyman lawsuit demands primary results be annulled, calls to remove Cox, Henderson from office

Justices had already rejected a similar argument in 2016, according to the court’s opinion. “If a party seeks to be a qualified political party under Utah law — as the Utah Republican Party has — the party must comply with state law,” the justices ruled then.

“Mr. Lyman cites no authority to support his assertion that a political party’s internal rules override state election law. And he overlooks that we reached the opposite conclusion in Utah Republican Party v. Cox, 2016,” according to the decision written by Chief Justice Matthew Durrant.

The court also decided that Lyman can’t make petitions on behalf of the other candidates who received overwhelming support in the convention. 

Lyman didn’t show it would be impractical or inappropriate to solve the challenge in a district court, either, the decision reads. Though he has raised new issues with the bill that created a dual path to the primary election ballot — signature-gathering or a party’s convention — Lyman did not explain why he cannot raise the concerns before a lower court.

In addition to the election result dismissal, Lyman had also asked the court to order the removal of Cox and Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson from their offices for “malfeasance,” a request the justices denied “because he has offered no viable factual or legal basis for the remedy he requests.”

One of Lyman’s biggest battles has been at records offices, making multiple unsuccessful challenges for the list of signatures filed in Cox and Henderson’s names to put them on the ballot. The Utah Supreme Court declined the records request included in the case as well, arguing that “he has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies under GRAMA,” Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act, “nor has he provided documentation to support the factual allegations on which his challenge is based.”

This may not be the end of the line for Lyman’s candidacy hopes. Before the ruling, Lyman said in a social media post that he would run a write-in campaign if he didn’t secure the party’s spot on the ballot, and continued to promote his candidacy in response to social media reactions to the Utah Supreme Court’s decision.

“Utahns deserve better, and they deserve to have a true conservative candidate in November who will stand up for truth, not hide behind Disagree Better propaganda,” Lyman wrote, pointing to the governor’s campaign against hyperpartisanship in politics. “Cox created this crisis of confidence, and we will not be bullied into backing down.”

Henderson, who has been the target of corruption accusations from Lyman, applauded the decision, calling Lyman’s lawsuit “frivolous” and arguing that “his self-serving political theatrics have cost the state hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.”

“For all his talk of election integrity, 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,” Henderson said. “Every Utahn should be appalled by Lyman’s shameful disregard for the rule of law, the state constitution, and the will of the voters.”