2 in 3 Utah adults voted in 2020. How does that compare?

            Washington County in Utah is bounded by Arizona on the south, and Nevada on the west.  The population estimate for 2019 was 177 thousand.  Of these 74.4% are adults or 131 thousand adults in Washington county.    

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/washingtoncountyutah,UT/PST045219

The census quickfacts includes break downs by veteran, gender, poverty, education, jobs, economy,  farming, language, and population density.    Utah’s population was 3.2 million in 2019, with 71% as adults or 2.276 million adults.

 According to www.Vote.Utah.gov , there were 1.7 million active registered voters in Utah, as of November 3, 2020 (1,681,844).  Another 176 thousand were inactive  voters, which is defined as a registered voter who has not voted in 2 regular general elections and has not responded to a notice sent by the county clerk. 

Dividing the active registered voters by the adults gives a ratio of 69.5 percent.  In other words 7 in 10 of Utah adults actually registered to vote.  The missing 3 in 10 adults are made up of foreign born non citizens, felons,  migrants, refugees, and those who have not presented the identification to get registered.

How many of those adults that were actually registered to vote, voted in Utah in 2020? 1.46 million (1,463,861 for President, 1,414,954 for state proposition A, ) 64% of  Utah adults vote, and 69% register. This compares to Los Angeles  which has  over 100% registered. So almost 2 in 3 adults voted, and 7 in 10 registered.

https://electionresults.utah.gov/elections/

In Utah 87% ballots were counted of those registered to vote..  The reality is this. Not everyone registers to vote, and , even if registered, not everyone who registers, votes. About 2/3^rds of the adults vote in Utah.  That number seems to be typical in life, such as, two thirds of the worshipers show up on Sunday to pray,  two thirds attend the PTA meetings,  two thirds come to the class reunions, two thirds make it to the HOA annual meetings. Or less.

Yet, when statistics  show a voting habit of two thirds, how can it possibly be that all voters in a city or county make it to the polls to vote? 100% turn out. And on occasion more than 100% vote? Smells like a skunk in the woods.  

So when states report 100% registration, that is an impossible number even if you have only hundreds to account for, and never, if it is  tens or hundreds of thousands.  The extra third equals half of the registered.  This means when a  state or county  allows 100%, one in three are fake, or ghost voters. When comingled with the 2 of 3, you can’t easily tell which was an honest vote and which was a stolen vote.

That’s what Judicial Watch wrote on October  16, 2020. New Judicial Watch Study Finds 353 U.S. Counties in 29 States with Voter Registration Rates Exceeding 100%  [ In these counties, one in three names is a fake, ghost, duplicate, or stolen vote.]

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a September 2020 study revealed that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters. The study found eight states showing state-wide registration rates exceeding 100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The September 2020 study collected the most recent registration data posted online by the states themselves. This data was then compared to the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018. ACS surveys are sent to 3.5 million addresses each month, and its five-year estimates are considered to be the most reliable estimates outside of the decennial census.

Judicial Watch’s latest study is necessarily limited to 37 states that post regular updates to their registration data. Certain state voter registration lists may also be even larger than reported, because they may have excluded “inactive voters” from their data. Inactive voters, who may have moved elsewhere, are still registered voters and may show up and vote on election day and/or request mail-in ballots.

Judicial Watch relies on its voter registration studies to warn states that they are failing to comply with the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires states to make reasonable efforts to clean their voter rolls. Judicial Watch can and has sued to enforce compliance with federal law.

Earlier this month, Judicial Watch sued Colorado over its failure to comply with the National Voter Registration Act. In Judicial Watch’s new study, 42 Colorado counties—or two thirds of the state’s counties—had registration rates exceeding 100%. Particular data from the state confirms this general picture. As the complaint explains, a month-by-month comparison of the ACS’s five-year survey period with Colorado’s own registration numbers for the exact same months shows that large proportions of Colorado’s counties have registration rates exceeding 100%. Earlier this year, Judicial Watch sued Pennsylvania and North Carolina for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from their rolls as required by federal law. The lawsuits allege that the two states have nearly 2 million inactive names on their voter registration rolls. Judicial Watch also sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.

“The new study shows 1.8 million excess, or ‘ghost’ voters in 353 counties across 29 states,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The data highlights the recklessness of mailing blindly ballots and ballot applications to voter registration lists. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections.”

Judicial Watch’s study updates the results of a similar study from last year. In August 2019, Judicial Watch analyzed registration data that states reported to the federal Election Assistance Commission  (EAC) in response to a survey conducted every two years on how states maintain their voter rolls. That registration data was compared to the then-most-recent ACS five-year survey from 2013 through 2017. The study showed that 378 U.S. counties had registration rates exceeding 100%.

Judicial Watch is a national leader for cleaner elections.

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-roll cleanup program that resulted from a Judicial Watch settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio. California settled a NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch and last year began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Kentucky also began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last year after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In September 2020, Judicial Watch sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.

STATES AND COUNTIES WITH REGISTRATION RATES EXCEEDING 100%

(* means no separate reporting of inactive registrations) [> for county]

Alabama: Lowndes > (130%); Macon > (114%); Wilcox (113%); Perry > (111%); Madison > (109%); Hale > (108%); Marengo > (108%); Baldwin (108%); Greene > (107%); Washington > (106%); Dallas > (106%); Choctaw > (105%); Conecuh > (105%); Randolph > (104%); Shelby > (104%); Lamar > (103%); Autauga > (103%); Clarke > (103%); Henry > (103%); Monroe > (102%); Colbert > (101%); Jefferson > (101%); Lee > (100%); Houston > (100%); Crenshaw > (100%)

*Alaska: Statewide (111%)

Arizona: Santa Cruz > (107%); Apache > (106%)

*Arkansas: Newton > (103%)

Colorado: Statewide (102%); San Juan > (158%); Dolores > (127%); Jackson > (125%); Mineral > (119%); Ouray > (119%); Phillips > (116%); Douglas > (116%); Broomfield > (115%); Elbert > (113%); Custer > (112%); Gilpin > (111%); Park > (111%); Archuleta > (111%); Cheyenne > (111%); Clear Creek > (110%); Teller > (108%); Grand > (107%); La Plata > (106%); Summit > (106%); Baca > (106%); Pitkin > (106%); San Miguel > (106%); Routt > (106%); Hinsdale > (105%); Garfield > (105%); Gunnison > (105%); Sedgwick > (104%); Eagle > (104%); Larimer > (104%); Weld > (104%); Boulder > (103%); Costilla > (103%); Chaffee > (103%); Kiowa > (103%); Denver > (103%); Huerfano > (102%); Montezuma > (102%); Moffat > (102%); Arapahoe > (102%); Jefferson > (101%); Las Animas > (101%); Mesa > (100%)

*Florida: St. Johns > (112%); Nassau > (109%); Walton > (108%); Santa Rosa > (108%); Flagler > (104%); Clay > (103%); Indian River > (101%); Osceola > (100%)

*Georgia: Bryan > (118%); Forsyth > (114%); Dawson > (113%); Oconee > (111%); Fayette > (111%); Fulton > (109%); Cherokee > (109%); Jackson > (107%); Henry > (106%); Lee > (106%); Morgan > (105%); Clayton > (105%); DeKalb > (105%); Gwinnett > (104%); Greene > (104%); Cobb > (104%); Effingham > (103%); Walton > (102%); Rockdale > (102%); Barrow > (101%); Douglas > (101%); Newton > (100%); Hall > (100%)

*Indiana: Hamilton > (113%); Boone > (112%); Clark > (105%); Floyd > (103%); Hancock > (103%); Ohio > (102%); Hendricks > (102%); Lake > (101%); Warrick > (100%); Dearborn > (100%)

Iowa: Dallas > (115%); Johnson > (104%); Lyon > (103%); Dickinson > (103%); Scott > (102%); Madison > (101%); Warren > (100%)

*Kansas: Johnson > (105%)

Maine: Statewide (101%); Cumberland > (110%); Sagadahoc > (107%); Hancock > (105%); Lincoln > (104%); Waldo > (102%); York > (100%)

Maryland: Statewide (102%); Montgomery > (113%); Howard > (111%); Frederick > (110%); Charles > (108%); Prince George’s > (106%); Queen Anne’s > (104%); Calvert > (104%); Harford > (104%); Worcester > (103%); Carroll > (103%); Anne Arundel > (102%); Talbot > (100%)

*Massachusetts: Dukes > (120%); Nantucket > (115%); Barnstable > (103%)

*Michigan: Statewide (105%); Leelanau > (119%); Otsego > (118%); Antrim > (116%); Kalkaska > (115%); Emmet > (114%); Berrien > (114%); Keweenaw > (114%); Benzie > (113%); Washtenaw > (113%); Mackinac > (112%); Dickinson > (112%); Roscommon > (112%); Charlevoix > (112%); Grand Traverse > (111%); Oakland > (110%); Iron > (110%); Monroe > (109%); Genesee > (109%); Ontonagon > (109%); Gogebic > (109%); Livingston > (109%); Alcona > (108%); Cass > (108%); Allegan > (108%); Oceana > (107%); Midland > (107%); Kent > (107%); Montmorency > (107%); Van Buren > (107%); Wayne > (107%); Schoolcraft > (107%); Mason > (107%); Oscoda > (107%); Iosco > (107%); Wexford > (106%); Presque Isle > (106%); Delta > (106%); Alpena > (106%); St Clair > (106%); Cheboygan > (105%); Newaygo > (105%); Barry > (105%); Gladwin > (105%); Menominee > (105%); Crawford > (105%); Muskegon > (105%); Kalamazoo > (104%); St. Joseph >  (104%); Ottawa > (103%); Clinton > (103%); Saginaw > (103%); Manistee > (103%); Lapeer > (103%); Calhoun > (103%); Ogemaw > (103%); Macomb > (103%); Missaukee > (102%); Eaton > (102%); Shiawassee > (102%); Huron > (102%); Lenawee > (101%); Branch > (101%); Osceola > (101%); Clare > (100%); Arenac > (100%); Bay > (100%); Lake > (100%)

*Missouri: St. Louis > (102%)

*Montana: Petroleum > (113%); Gallatin > (103%); Park > (103%); Madison > (102%); Broadwater > (102%)

*Nebraska: Arthur > (108%); Loup > (103%); Keya Paha > (102%); Banner > (100%); McPherson > (100%)

Nevada: Storey > (108%); Douglas > (105%); Nye > (101%)

*New Jersey: Statewide (102%); Somerset > (110%); Hunterdon > (108%); Morris > (107%); Essex > (106%); Monmouth > (104%); Bergen > (103%); Middlesex > (103%); Union > (103%); Camden > (102%); Warren > (102%); Atlantic > (102%); Sussex > (101%); Salem > (101%); Hudson > (100%); Gloucester > (100%)

*New Mexico: Harding > (177%); Los Alamos > (110%)

New York: Hamilton > (118%); Nassau > (109%); New York (103%); Rockland > (101%); Suffolk > (100%)

*Oregon: Sherman > (107%); Crook > (107%); Deschutes > (105%); Wallowa > (103%); Hood River > (103%); Columbia > (102%); Linn > (101%); Polk > (100%); Tillamook > (100%)

Rhode Island: Statewide (101%); Bristol > (104%); Washington > (103%); Providence > (101%)

*South Carolina: Jasper > (103%)

South Dakota: Hanson > (171%); Union > (120%); Jones > (116%); Sully > (115%); Lincoln > (113%); Custer > (110%); Fall River > (108%); Pennington > (106%); Harding > (105%); Minnehaha > (104%); Potter > (104%); Campbell > (103%); McPherson > (101%); Hamlin > (101%); Stanley > (101%); Lake > (100%); Perkins > (100%)

Tennessee: Williamson > (110%); Moore > (101%); Polk > (101%)

Texas: Loving > (187%); Presidio > (149%); McMullen > (147%); Brooks > (117%); Roberts > (116%); Sterling > (115%); Zapata > (115%); Maverick > (112%); Starr > (110%); King > (110%); Chambers > (109%); Irion > (108%); Jim Hogg > (107%); Polk > (107%); Comal > (106%); Oldham > (104%); Culberson > (104%); Kendall > (103%); Dimmit > (103%); Rockwall > (102%); Motley > (102%); Parker > (102%); Hudspeth > (101%); Travis > (101%); Fort Bend > (101%); Kent > (101%); Webb > (101%); Mason > (101%); Crockett > (101%); Waller > (100%); Gillespie > (100%); Duval > (100%); Brewster > (100%)

Vermont: Statewide (100%)

Virginia: Loudoun > (116%); Falls Church City (114%); Fairfax City (109%); Goochland > (108%); Arlington > (106%); Fairfax > (106%); Prince William > (105%); James City > (105%); Alexandria City (105%); Fauquier > (105%); Isle of Wight > (104%); Chesterfield > (104%); Surry > (103%); Hanover > (103%); New Kent > (103%); Clarke > (103%); King William > (102%); Spotsylvania > (102%); Rappahannock > (102%); Albemarle > (101%); Stafford > (101%); Northampton > (101%); Poquoson City (100%); Frederick > (100%)

Washington: Garfield > (119%); Pend Oreille > (112%); Jefferson > (111%); San Juan > (108%); Wahkiakum > (108%); Stevens > (103%); Pacific > (103%); Clark > (102%); Island > (102%); Klickitat > (102%); Thurston > (102%); Lincoln > (101%); Whatcom > (100%); Asotin > (100%)*West Virginia: Mingo > (104%); Wyoming > (103%); McDowell > (102%); Brooke > (102%); Hancock > (100%) ###