Utah: Pioneering Primary Election Reform
Author
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Utah’s Dual-Track Nomination System
- Reform Proposals Under Debate
- Reinforcing the Caucus-Convention Path
- All-Candidate Primaries as a Comprehensive Reform
- Conclusion
Media Contact
For general and media inquiries and to book our experts, please contact: pr@rstreet.org
Strategic reforms would make Utah’s primary elections more competitive and representative, restore voter trust, and reinforce the state’s standing as a national leader in democratic innovation.
Executive Summary
Utah has a long history of electoral innovation, from granting women the right to vote in 1870 to early adoption of the initiative process and, more recently, statewide vote-by-mail elections. That tradition of reform, however, has not prevented growing concerns about how political candidates are currently chosen. Specifically, low-turnout primaries often determine the outcome of uncompetitive general elections, raising questions about whether the system truly reflects the will of Utah voters.
This paper examines Utah’s dual-track nomination process, which enables candidates to qualify either through the traditional caucus-convention system or by gathering signatures. It also reviews recent legislative efforts to change that process, including proposals to fortify the convention system, move to standard primaries, or add runoff elections to improve legitimacy and voter confidence.
While each of these reforms offers potential improvements, none would address the problem as comprehensively as an all-candidate primary tailored to Utah’s political landscape. This paper presents several variations of this approach that policymakers might consider—from top-two to top-four/top-five models—with options for either traditional or instant runoffs to ensure majority winners. Importantly, a Utah-specific version of this approach could be developed to preserve the role of the caucus-convention system while expanding ballot access and transparency. Such reforms would make Utah elections more competitive and representative, restore voter trust, and reinforce the state’s standing as a national leader in democratic innovation.
Introduction
On her way to work in Salt Lake City in 1870, 23-year-old teacher Seraph Young stopped to cast a ballot in a local election.[1] In so doing, Young became the first woman in American history to vote under a law granting equal suffrage.[2] Although Congress subsequently stripped Utah women of that right in 1887, the state restored it in its 1896 constitution.[3]
That defining moment marked the beginning of Utah’s emergence as a democratic pioneer. By 1900, it was among the first states to adopt an initiative and referendum process, giving citizens a direct voice in lawmaking.[4] Much more recently, in 2019, Utah stood out as a national leader in voting accessibility as one of only a handful of states conducting elections entirely by mail.[5]
This legacy of electoral innovation is especially relevant today as Utah considers a new challenge: how to best conduct primary elections to produce broadly representative outcomes and enhance elected officials’ accountability. Utah is not alone in facing this challenge. Across the country, states are increasingly facing the “primary problem”—a dynamic in which elections are frequently being decided in low-turnout partisan primaries rather than in competitive general elections.[6]
This paper traces Utah’s history of electoral innovation into the present, explaining how the state’s dual-track nomination system functions and exploring the debates it has sparked. It reviews proposed reforms, including strengthening the caucus-convention process, moving to direct primaries, and adopting runoffs. It also explores a more comprehensive solution—an all-candidate primary system—tailored to Utah’s unique political landscape. Variations of this model are presented, including top-two and top-four/top-five systems, as well as a Utah-specific approach that would incorporate elements of the caucus-convention process into the ballot. Collectively, these options highlight the trade-offs lawmakers must weigh as they consider how to best balance party traditions, voter access, and public trust.
Utah’s Dual-Track Nomination System
Candidates in Utah have multiple paths to compete for their party’s nomination, making the process more complicated than it is in many other states. One path is the caucus-convention system, a multi-step process that begins at the local level.[7] Registered party members in each voting precinct gather in neighborhood caucus meetings where they elect delegates to represent them at the party’s convention. Any party member attending the caucus may volunteer to run as a delegate, and the group votes to select who will move forward. These delegates are typically given several weeks to research the candidates, attend town halls, and evaluate campaign materials ahead of the convention. If the delegates agree on a clear winner at the convention, that candidate is put forward as the party’s nominee; if they cannot agree, a primary election is held. The plurality winner of the primary election then becomes the party’s candidate.[8] This path places significant power in the hands of delegates selected by a relatively small number of party members at the caucus level, making early participation and delegate selection especially important.
However, candidates are not limited to the convention route to gain a spot on a ballot. They can also force a primary election by gathering signatures.[9] Once a candidate secures the required number of signatures—currently 28,000 for statewide elections (thresholds are lower for legislative and local positions)—they qualify to be included on the primary ballot.[10] They then compete against the convention’s candidate and any other signature-gathering candidates.
Utah state law allows political parties to decide who will participate in their primary elections, and each voter may take part in only one party’s primary.[11] Currently, the Utah Democratic Party conducts open primaries, allowing any voter to participate. In contrast, the Utah Republican Party limits participation to registered party members only.[12]
Reform Proposals Under Debate
Utah lawmakers have explored a range of reforms in recent years, each aimed at improving how candidates are nominated and how well elections reflect the will of voters. These include proposals to reinforce the caucus-convention path, eliminate the caucus-convention path, and introduce runoff elections to ensure broader legitimacy.
Reinforcing the Caucus-Convention Path
Until 2014, the caucus-convention system was the only path to the general election for Utah’s partisan politicians.[13] That year, amid significant controversy, a compromise bill passed, which created the signature-gathering path.[14] Opponents of the legislation argued that it undermined Utah’s traditional system and gave special interests greater influence over candidate selection by enabling them to run costly, misleading campaigns aimed at voters who lacked the direct access to candidates and information available to party delegates.[15]
This debate has continued ever since, with several failed attempts to restore the convention’s dominance. As recently as 2023, a Republican-sponsored bill sought to allow a candidate to bypass the primary if they received at least 70 percent of delegate support—even if other candidates qualified by signatures.[16] That bill passed the Utah House but died in the Senate.[17]
Despite these efforts, strengthening the caucus-convention system presents serious drawbacks. While the system does foster direct engagement between delegates and candidates through forums, policy discussions, and qualification vetting, it relies on a small group of delegates chosen by the modest fraction of party members who attend local caucuses. This structure can produce nominees who do not reflect the broader party electorate. In addition, delegates are not immune to outside pressures; they can be targeted and influenced by those seeking to shape convention outcomes. Thus, in practice, the convention system remains a far less representative path than a primary election.
Recent Republican contests illustrate these issues. Ahead of the 2024 election, Governor Spencer Cox and Senator John Curtis both fell short of securing delegate support at the convention.[18] Cox lost to state Representative Phil Lyman, who secured 67.5 percent of the delegate vote, and Curtis lost to Riverton mayor Trent Staggs, who won 69.4 percent of the delegate vote.[19] Lyman and several other convention winners immediately argued that their wins were so dominant, they should not be subjected to a primary and denounced the signature-gathering path.[20] Yet in the primaries, which were open to all registered Republicans, Cox and Curtis were clear winners. Cox won 54 percent of the votes in a two-way race, Curtis won 49 percent in a crowded field, and Staggs secured just 33 percent.[21] Both Cox and Curtis then went on to win sweeping victories in the general election.[22] In the end, no GOP convention-winner was selected by primary voters to compete for a statewide office in 2024.[23] Amid boos and jeers, Governor Cox asked convention delegates why they hated him so much despite his championing of party priorities, speculating, “[m]aybe you hate that I don’t hate enough.”[24] His remarks captured a deeper truth: Convention delegates are not necessarily representative of Utah Republicans or the state’s electorate as a whole.
The figures behind the state’s 2024 elections underscore this point. That year, only 9 percent of Utah Republicans attended the delegate-selecting caucuses.[25] Thus, a very small proportion of party members selected an even smaller group of delegates to make election decisions on behalf of the whole party. In fact, just 3,694 delegates voted in the gubernatorial contest, and some state House races were decided by as few as 74 delegates.[26] In contrast, more than 430,000 Republican voters, constituting 48 percent of the party’s registered membership, turned out for the 2024 primary election.[27] In the case of the 2024 elections, because only 11 of Utah’s 75 House races were considered competitive, the candidate selection process was essentially determinative.[28] When such a small proportion of voters carry so much influence over candidate selection, it can weaken public confidence in the democratic process.
Eliminating the Caucus-Convention Path
Given the challenges and limitations of the caucus-convention system, many Utahns have called for its elimination.[29] During the 2025 legislative session, the Democrat-sponsored House Bill 232 sought to require that political parties in Utah choose between the caucus-convention system or a direct primary system—an effort designed to encourage the state’s major parties to adopt direct primaries.[30] The bill also reduced the number of signatures required to qualify for the primary ballot to lower barriers for candidates.[31]
Although this reform would have avoided the pitfalls of the caucus-convention system and increased ballot access for candidates, it likely would not have increased voter participation. More importantly, support for the caucus-convention system remains staunch in many corners.[32] Likely as a result, this bill never advanced out of committee.[33]
Adding Runoffs to Ensure Majority Winners
Another proposed change to the state’s primary election system came via Republican-backed House Bill 231.[34] In this legislation, if no candidate received 50 percent in the first round of primary voting, a runoff election would be held, whereby the top-two vote-getters would face off in a second round of voting to ensure that the ultimate winner would secure majority support from voters. Although the bill (which was amended to allow a winner with less than 50 percent as long as that candidate outperformed all of the other candidates by at least 10 percentage points) passed in the House, it stalled in the Senate.[35]
Runoffs can improve legitimacy because they typically require candidates to appeal to a broader segment of primary voters and prevent crowded fields from producing an unpopular winner.[36] They do, however, represent an added expense for taxpayers and tend to suffer from lower turnout than the original election.[37] Utah’s universal vote-by-mail system may mitigate that risk, as it has significantly increased voter participation and serves as a physical reminder of elections.[38]
Recent elections in Utah highlight the inherent representation problem with plurality winners. In 2020, Governor Cox secured the Republican nomination with just 36.2 percent of the vote in a competitive four-way race, narrowly edging out former governor Jon Huntsman, who received 35 percent.[39] Similarly, in 2024, Representative Mike Kennedy won the GOP nomination in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District with only 38.8 percent of the vote in a five-way race.[40] In fact, some county commission contests have been decided with as little as 25 percent of the vote.[41] Even if the eventual winner remained the same, a runoff system would strengthen winners’ legitimacy by requiring them to secure a majority and build consensus beyond their original base.
All-Candidate Primaries as a Comprehensive Reform
With several reforms circulating in the Utah State Capitol, this is an opportune time to consider a more comprehensive approach that captures the state’s electoral advantages. Utah’s dominant Republican majority, statewide vote-by-mail system, and history of electoral innovation make it especially well-suited for an all-candidate primary system. Under this model, all candidates—regardless of party affiliation—compete in a single primary open to all voters. The results then determine who advances to the general election ballot. This approach offers clear benefits over partisan primaries, which use public funds to conduct exclusive party contests and allow candidates to win without facing the full electorate. Moreover, the model is flexible: it can be adapted in a variety of ways to complement Utah‘s unique political landscape.
Top-Two
The simplest version of this system advances the top two candidates from the primary election to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. In much of Utah, both candidates would likely be Republicans, although, in some urban areas, two Democrats might prevail. Either way, the decisive election would shift from the June primary to the November general election, giving voters a greater influence in final outcomes. Moreover, candidates would be incentivized to appeal beyond their partisan base and remain accountable to a much broader segment of their constituency.
The advantage of this approach lies in its simplicity: Voters are already accustomed to choosing between two candidates in general elections, and the logistics are straightforward. However, top-two systems also have drawbacks. In areas where one party dominates, minority party candidates may be entirely excluded from the general election ballot. In addition, on rare occasions, vote-splitting among major-party candidates could produce unrepresentative general elections in which only minor-party candidates qualified.[42]
Top-Four/Top-Five
To address these drawbacks, some states have adopted top-four or top-five systems. These variations ensure that any remotely competitive party is represented in the general election, making space for independent and third-party candidates. This is especially relevant in Utah, where 34 percent of the state’s 1.7 million active registered voters are either unaffiliated or aligned with a third party.[43]
However, a larger general-election field raises the risk of winners prevailing with only a small share of the vote. To prevent this problem, top-four or top-five systems can be paired with a runoff that can be held in different ways. One option would be to replicate the House-approved runoff system in which the top-two finishers in the November election would advance to a subsequent head-to-head contest. This is how states like Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi handle their runoffs.[44] Alternatively, Utah could choose to conduct both the general and runoff elections simultaneously through an instant runoff, which is the approach used in Alaska and Maine.[45] Utah has already piloted the latter approach at the local level with promising results.[46] This instant runoff method also has the added benefits of saving voters time and reducing costs to taxpayers.[47]
A Utah-Specific, All-Candidate Model
As discussed earlier, much of the debate surrounding Utah’s current candidate-selection system has highlighted the differing opinions of those committed to the caucus-convention system and those who favor a more accessible primary election. The all-candidate primary could bridge this divide with a tailored approach that leverages Utah’s history of smart electoral solutions and innovations.
For this tailored approach, Utah could create a unique ballot design that highlights convention-endorsed candidates with a party logo to indicate official party backing. This would promote the value of party conventions and give voters helpful, clear information on a crowded primary ballot. To balance this increased visibility for delegate-selected candidates, the non-caucus path to appearing on the primary ballot would need to be simplified, either by significantly lowering signature thresholds or by replacing the signature-gathering process with a nominal filing fee. The resulting rebalanced system would maintain the parties’ prominent role as candidate endorsers and campaign organizers but also ensure fair and open competition.
Conclusion
Utah has long been a pioneer in election innovation. However, the current system for selecting candidates falls short, as elections are becoming less and less competitive, and elected officials are facing lower levels of accountability.
An all-candidate primary, as outlined in this paper, offers a pragmatic, customized path forward—one that respects voter choice, encourages broader participation, and ensures that those who ultimately govern must appeal to the full range of their constituents. Policymakers pursuing this reform can consider a range of options and variations to ensure that the final system is built by and for Utahns.
Reforming the state’s primary system will not solve every political challenge, but it can help restore fairness and competition to a critical step of the democratic process. If any state is positioned to lead on this issue, it is Utah, where voters value both strong institutions and an independent political spirit. By pursuing comprehensive reform of the candidate-selection process, Utah can reaffirm its commitment to accountable government and strengthen the legitimacy of its elected officials.
[1]. Rebekah Clark, “Seraph Young Ford, First Woman to Vote with Equal Suffrage,” Utah Women’s History, last accessed May 1, 2025. https://utahwomenshistory.org/the-women/seraph-young.
[2]. Ibid.
[3]. Barbara Jones Brown et al., “Gaining, Losing, and Winning Back the Vote: The Story of Utah Women’s Suffrage,” Utah Women’s History, Feb. 9, 2018. https://utahwomenshistory.org/2018/02/receiving-losing-and-winning-back-the-vote-the-story-of-utah-womens-suffrage.
[4]. “Utah,” Initiative and Referendum Institute, last accessed May 2, 2025. https://iandrinstitute.org/Utah.htm.
[5]. “States With Mostly Mail Elections,” National Conference of State Legislatures, Oct. 11, 2024. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections.
[6]. “The Primary Problem,” Unite America Institute, March 2021. https://www.uniteamericainstitute.org/research/the-primary-problem.
[7]. “Utah’s Caucus Convention System,” Brigham Young University, last accessed May 6, 2025. https://history.byu.edu/utahs-caucus-convention-system-coming-soon.
[8]. Ibid.
[9]. “Utah Code 20A-9-408,”Utah State Legislature, last accessed May 7, 2025. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title20A/Chapter9/20A-9-S408.html.
[10]. Ibid.
[11]. Ibid.
[12]. Katie McKellar, “Primary ballots are hitting Utah mailboxes. Here’s how to make sure your vote gets counted,” Utah News Dispatch, June 8, 2024. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/06/08/utah-primary-ballots-how-to-make-sure-your-vote-gets-counted.
[13]. Robert Gehrke, “Deal on Count My Vote gets lawmakers’ OK, sent to gov,” The Salt Lake Tribune, March 6, 2014. https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57637699&itype=CMSID.
[14]. Ibid.
[15]. “Protect Our Neighborhood Elections,” Neighborhood Elections, 2013. https://web.archive.org/web/20140407033303/http://www.neighborhoodelection.org.
[16]. “H.B. 393 Primary Ballot Requirements,” Utah State Legislature, 2023. https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0393.html.
[17]. Ibid.
[18]. Brigham Tomco and Hanna Seariac, “Phil Lyman beats Gov. Spencer Cox at Utah GOP convention. Both advance to primary,” Deseret News, April 27, 2024.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/04/27/utah-gop-governor-convention-results; Saige Miller and Sean Higgins, “Riding Trump’s endorsement, Trent Staggs is the Utah GOP convention pick for Senate,” KUER, April 28, 2024. https://www.kuer.org/politics-government/2024-04-28/riding-trumps-endorsement-trent-staggs-is-the-utah-gop-convention-pick-for-senate.
[19]. Ibid.
[20]. Robert Gehrke, “Phil Lyman wants to toss Gov. Cox from office and upend Utah’s election results,” FOX 13 News Utah, Oct. 22, 2024. https://www.fox13now.com/news/politics/phil-lyman-wants-to-toss-gov-cox-from-office-and-upend-utahs-election-results.
[21]. “2024 Primary Election,” State of Utah, June 25, 2024. https://electionresults.utah.gov/results/public/utah/elections/primary06252024.
[22]. “2024 General Election,” State of Utah, Nov. 5, 2024. https://electionresults.utah.gov/results/public/utah/elections/general11052024.
[23]. Bridger Beal-Cvetko, “Convention-only candidates flounder in Utah’s GOP primaries,” KSL, June 27, 2024. https://www.ksl.com/article/51054884/convention-only-candidates-flounder-in-utahs-gop-primaries.
[24]. Tomco and Seariac. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/04/27/utah-gop-governor-convention-results.
[25]. Brigham Tomco, “Tuesday’s GOP caucus presidential vote had 9% turnout. What went wrong?,” Deseret News, March 8, 2024. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/03/08/utah-republican-caucus-presidential-nomination-vote-problems-low-turnout.
[26]. “The Truth About Utah’s Caucus Convention System,” People4Utah, June 17, 2024. https://people4utah.org/the-truth-about-utahs-caucus-convention-system.
[27]. Katie McKellar, “Utah’s 2024 Republican primary saw lower voter turnout compared to record-setting 2020,” Utah News Dispatch, July 25, 2024. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/07/25/utah-2024-primary-election-low-voter-turnout.
[28]. “Utah House of Representatives elections, 2024,” Ballotpedia, last accessed May 27, 2025. https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2024.
[29]. Sharlee Mullins Glenn, “Opinion: Utah’s Republican caucus/convention system does not serve the people,” Deseret News, June 27, 2024. https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/06/27/utah-republican-gop-caucus-convention-system-does-not-serve-people.
[30]. “H.B. 232 Candidate Nomination Procedures Amendments,” Utah State Legislature, 2025. https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/HB0232.html; Brigham Tomco, “It’s been 10 years. These lawmakers are ready for another primary election overhaul,” Deseret News, Jan. 23, 2025. https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/01/23/utah-primary-election-bills-in-the-2025-legislative-session.
[31]. Verl Johansen, “Utah lawmaker proposal would lower signature requirements to run for office,” KSL NewsRadio, Jan. 15, 2025. https://kslnewsradio.com/elections-politics-government/signature-requirements-utah/2171598.
[32]. Katie McKellar, “Utah’s SB54 still stands despite 10 years of angst. Will lawmakers change it?,” Utah News Dispatch, Jan. 16, 2025. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2025/01/16/utah-sb54-still-stands-will-lawmakers-make-changes.
[33]. “H.B. 232 Candidate Nomination Procedures Amendments.” https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/HB0232.html.
[34]. “H.B. 231 Primary Election Amendments,” Utah State Legislature, 2025. https://le.utah.gov/Session/2025/bills/static/HB0231.html.
[35]. Ibid.
[36]. Cynthia McClintock, Electoral Rules and Democracy in Latin America (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 29-64.
[37]. Rachel Hutchinson and Ben Fitzgerald, “Low Turnout and High Cost in Primary Runoffs, 1994-2024,” FairVote, 2024. https://fairvote.org/report/low-turnout-and-high-cost-in-primary-runoffs-1994-2024.
[38]. Asia Lynne Reid and Michael Barber, “From Ballot Box To Mailbox: The Effect of Vote-by-Mail in Municipal Elections in Utah,” Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, last accessed June 1, 2025. https://www.scribd.com/document/832262158/From-Ballot-Box-to-Mailbox-The-Effect-of-Vote-by-Mail-in-Municipal-Elections-in-Utah.
[39]. Ibid.
[40]. Ibid.
[41]. Tomco. https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/01/23/utah-primary-election-bills-in-the-2025-legislative-session.
[42]. Matt Germer and Ryan Williamson, “The Good, the Bad and the In-Between: Washington’s Implementation of Top-Two Voting,” R Street Policy Study No. 292, September 2023. https://www.rstreet.org/research/the-good-the-bad-and-the-in-between-washingtons-implementation-of-top-two-voting.
[43]. Katie McKellar, “Most Utahns who changed party affiliation switched to unaffiliated, 2024 election data shows,” Utah News Dispatch, Aug. 17, 2024. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/08/17/utahns-changing-party-affiliation-switched-to-unaffiliated.
[44]. “Runoff election,” Ballotpedia, last accessed June 17, 2025. https://ballotpedia.org/Runoff_election.
[45]. “Where Is RCV Used?,” Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, last accessed June 25, 2025. https://www.rcvresources.org/where-is-rcv-used.
[46]. Rachel Hutchinson, “Herbert Institute Reports Find Ranked Choice Voting Is Working in Utah and Voters Like It,” FairVote, Jan. 29, 2025. https://fairvote.org/herbert-institute-reports-find-ranked-choice-voting-is-working-in-utah-and-voters-like-it.
[47]. Rachel Hutchinson, “Ranked Choice Voting Saves Utah Voters Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars,” FairVote, March 13, 2025. https://fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-saves-utah-voters-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars.