US Supreme Court declines to hear Phil Lyman's challenge of Utah primary system

SALT LAKE CITY — The United States Supreme Court announced Monday it had declined to hear the case of unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman that challenged the process used by Utah Gov. Spencer Cox to appear on the general election ballot.

The announcement came quietly, with Lyman's legal motion appearing on the list of cases that were turned down by the nation's final court of appeal over the weekend, marking the end of Lyman's months-long battle to reverse the results of his primary defeat to Cox.

Cox was ceremonially inaugurated as governor for a second four-year term on Wednesday. Following the event, Cox told reporters he had not given Lyman's Supreme Court appeal "a second thought."

"That's not a thing," Cox said.

Despite Lyman's legal setbacks, he has said he is committed to pursue future court challenges and to run for additional positions of influence within the Utah Republican Party.

Who is Phil Lyman?

Lyman, a former state lawmaker from Blanding, has centered his social-media-heavy campaign for governor around his disagreements with the state's electoral system, alleging that the faults he sees in the process indicate the presence of fraud.

Lyman beat Cox at the state party convention in April, securing 67.5% support among the nearly 4,000 GOP delegates present, making Cox the first incumbent to not meet the convention's 40% threshold to qualify for the primary ballot since a signature-gathering path was established a decade ago.

Cox had qualified for the primary ballot months earlier after submitting 28,000 voter signatures to the Lieutenant Governor's Office, which oversees Utah elections. The primary nomination packets containing the signatures were verified by the Davis County Clerk's Office.

A legislative audit report in October found that the Davis County Clerk's Office had incorrectly validated a small number of Cox's signatures with an error rate of 2.4%, similar to that of other signature-gathering candidates. This signature verification error rate may have meant that Cox qualified for the primary without initially reaching the threshold for valid voter signatures.

However, the audit stressed that the small error rate in the signature verification process did not have any effect on the validity of Cox's primary qualification or Cox's primary victory because Cox followed the law each step of the way and could have easily submitted extra signatures.

Cox defeated Lyman to win the Utah Republican Party's nomination in the June GOP primary election with 54% of the vote to Lyman's 45% among nearly 427,000 Utah Republican voters.

Immediately after the election was called for Cox, Lyman told reporters he was exploring a constitutional challenge to SB54, the 10-year-old law that allows candidates to qualify for the primary election ballot either at the party's convention or by gathering signatures.

Lyman's Utah argument

On Aug. 1, one week after losing to Cox in the primary by more than 37,500 votes, Lyman filed a lawsuit with the Utah Supreme Court against Cox; Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, the state's chief election officer; Utah GOP chair Rob Axson; and the Utah Republican Party.

Lyman asked the court to "set aside and annul" the results of the 2024 primary election for himself and other candidates who received more than 60% at the Utah GOP nominating convention.

Lyman argued that SB54 did not change internal party bylaws which say that if a candidate exceeds 60% at convention they advance straight to the general election without a "direct" primary election.

Lyman asked the state's highest court to certify his own placement on the general election ballot as the Republican Party's nominee for governor with an additional order to immediately remove Cox from office for "malfeasance."

But in August, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that Lyman's petition for judicial action failed to show "a legal basis for setting aside the 2024 Republican primary election."

Lyman's request to throw out the 2024 primary and place himself on the general election ballot was based on the view that the "Republican Party's internal procedures trump state election law," the court said. "We disagree."

"The party must comply with state law, including the requirement that members be allowed to seek the party's nomination for elective office through signature gathering and/or convention process," the court decision read. "Mr. Lyman cites no authority to support his assertion that a political party's internal rules override state election law."

The court had rejected a similar argument several years ago when the Utah GOP sued the state over SB54.

Lyman's Supreme Court case

In October, Lyman appealed his argument to the U.S. Supreme Court, filing his request pro se, or without any legal representation, as he had done in his Utah Supreme Court case.

Lyman asked the Supreme Court's nine justices to "review the judgment of the Utah Supreme Court, the court of last resort, and remand the case back for further proceedings."

Lyman argued that the state's primary election law, which was upheld by The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018, is unconstitutional because it violates "freedom of association under the First Amendment," leading to a "deprivation of rights protected by the United States Constitution."

Throughout the repetitive 32-page argument, Lyman expressed frustration that Utah's election system gives candidates who lose at convention a "second chance" at winning their party's nomination during a primary, forcing him as the convention winner "to face an additional challenge."

Lyman filed an additional motion with the Supreme Court on Nov. 21, requesting an emergency injunction to halt the Nov. 25 certification of Cox's victory in the general election. This request was denied by Justice Neil Gorsuch on Dec. 13.

Lyman had participated in the election as a write-in candidate where he received 13.6% of the vote to Cox's 52.9%.

Read the full article at Deseret.com.

Related topics