- Lead
- 501
- Total
- 5,300
- vs nation
- D+10.9
- Turnout
- 70.6%
Grand County, UT
President margin by year
Place winner margin
President results by year
2024 turnout 70.6% of 7,605 citizens 18+
- Lead
- 558
- Total
- 5,205
- vs nation
- D+6.3
- Turnout
- 74.3%
- Lead
- 15
- Total
- 4,601
- vs nation
- R+2.4
- Turnout
- 64.9%
- Lead
- 269
- Total
- 3,950
- vs nation
- R+10.7
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 196
- Total
- 4,077
- vs nation
- R+2.5
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 272
- Total
- 4,165
- vs nation
- R+4.1
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 664
- Total
- 3,614
- vs nation
- R+18.9
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 185
- Total
- 3,251
- vs nation
- R+14.2
- Turnout
- —
Key facts
- 2024 presidential margin
- D+9.5MIT Election Lab
- Population
- 9,7542024 5-year
- Median household income
- $67,1062024 5-year
- White (non-Hispanic)
- 77.6%2024 5-year
- Black
- 0.0%2024 5-year
- Hispanic / Latino
- 13.0%2024 5-year
- Peak Democratic margin
- D+80.8 in 1896MIT Election Lab
- Peak Republican margin
- R+52.2 in 1956MIT Election Lab
- Most similar
- Teton County, ID · twin score 83.8
Midterm durability
Total general-election participants divided by same-year citizen voting-age population. These are total ballots or participating voters—not presidential candidate votes.
- 2024 total turnout
- 70.6%5,371 participants ÷ 7,605 CVAP
- 2020→2022 drop-off
- +12.6 ptsVolatile
- Drop-off versus state
- -12.7 ptsPositive means a larger decline than the statewide pattern
- Mechanical 2026 scenario
- 58.0%–63.5%Recent-cycle and two-cycle persistence scenarios; not a forecast
| Election | Participants | CVAP | Turnout | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 · Presidential | 4,601 | 7,090 | 64.9% | C/A |
| 2018 · Midterm | 4,401 | 6,964 | 63.2% | A/A |
| 2020 · Presidential | 5,376 | 7,239 | 74.3% | A/A |
| 2022 · Midterm | 4,645 | 7,537 | 61.6% | C/A |
| 2024 · Presidential | 5,371 | 7,605 | 70.6% | A/A |
Sources and methods
- 2016: numerator source 159, denominator source 157; top ticket votes; canonical-complete-contest-floor-v1; allocation share 0.0%; series 148/111.
- 2018: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 297/138.
- 2020: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 301/2.
- 2022: numerator source 159, denominator source 157; top ticket votes; canonical-complete-contest-floor-v1; allocation share 0.0%; series 154/183.
- 2024: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 311/228.
Precinct data
Results by precinct
20 precincts · 5,297 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -1-U11-U1 | 353 | 272 | 15 | 640 | 55.2% | 42.5% | D+12.7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -4-M14-M1 | 326 | 205 | 4 | 535 | 60.9% | 38.3% | D+22.6 |
| Precinct -5-U25-U2 | 190 | 231 | 10 | 431 | 44.1% | 53.6% | R+9.5 |
| Precinct -5-U35-U3 | 150 | 234 | 4 | 388 | 38.7% | 60.3% | R+21.6 |
| Precinct -5-U15-U1 | 159 | 207 | 15 | 381 | 41.7% | 54.3% | R+12.6 |
| Precinct -3-M13-M1 | 188 | 148 | 14 | 350 | 53.7% | 42.3% | D+11.4 |
| Precinct -2-M12-M1 | 174 | 125 | 13 | 312 | 55.8% | 40.1% | D+15.7 |
| Precinct -4-U4-U | 137 | 144 | 18 | 299 | 45.8% | 48.2% | R+2.3 |
| Precinct -4-M24-M2 | 184 | 101 | 3 | 288 | 63.9% | 35.1% | D+28.8 |
| Precinct -3-M33-M3 | 180 | 77 | 8 | 265 | 67.9% | 29.1% | D+38.9 |
| Precinct -2-M32-M3 | 168 | 93 | 2 | 263 | 63.9% | 35.4% | D+28.5 |
| Precinct -2-M22-M2 | 118 | 121 | 9 | 248 | 47.6% | 48.8% | R+1.2 |
| Precinct -1-C1-C | 161 | 72 | 10 | 243 | 66.3% | 29.6% | D+36.6 |
| Precinct -3-M23-M2 | 118 | 100 | 9 | 227 | 52.0% | 44.1% | D+7.9 |
| Precinct -1-U21-U2 | 101 | 110 | 7 | 218 | 46.3% | 50.5% | R+4.1 |
| Precinct -1-U31-U3 | 31 | 48 | 2 | 81 | 38.3% | 59.3% | R+21.0 |
| Precinct -3-M43-M4 | 44 | 10 | 0 | 54 | 81.5% | 18.5% | D+63.0 |
| Precinct -2-U2-U | 21 | 14 | 0 | 35 | 60.0% | 40.0% | D+20.0 |
| Precinct -1-T1-T | 8 | 12 | 1 | 21 | 38.1% | 57.1% | R+19.0 |
| Precinct -1-M1-M | 17 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 94.4% | 0.0% | D+94.4 |
Presidential margin, 1896–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1896 | +80.8% |
| 1900 | +6.7% |
| 1904 | −21.2% |
| 1908 | −3.6% |
| 1912 | +3.7% |
| 1916 | +17.3% |
| 1920 | −4.7% |
| 1924 | −6.0% |
| 1928 | −5.6% |
| 1932 | +28.3% |
| 1936 | +30.8% |
| 1940 | +1.6% |
| 1944 | −5.9% |
| 1948 | −2.2% |
| 1952 | −44.5% |
| 1956 | −52.2% |
| 1960 | −16.8% |
| 1964 | +0.7% |
| 1968 | −30.9% |
| 1972 | −50.2% |
| 1976 | −29.8% |
| 1980 | −49.5% |
| 1984 | −47.1% |
| 1988 | −18.7% |
| 1992 | +1.8% |
| 1996 | −5.7% |
| 2000 | −18.4% |
| 2004 | −6.5% |
| 2008 | +4.8% |
| 2012 | −6.8% |
| 2016 | −0.3% |
| 2020 | +10.7% |
| 2024 | +9.5% |
U.S. House
Each row shows U.S. House votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
| Year | Vote lead | Democratic | Republican | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | D | 53.0%2,686 | 47.0%2,382 | 5,068 |
U.S. Senate
Each row shows U.S. Senate votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
Governor
Each row shows Governor votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
Registered voters
By party of registration, over time
Grand County, UT registers Republican but votes Democratic — a 24-point gap between how voters register and how they vote, the signature of ancestral registration that trails realignment.
5,848 registered voters · 2026
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
+44 net domestic migration · 2025
Net −111 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $65,874 in average income, against $76,505 for residents who stayed — 14% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+1.9 on average — 11 points more Republican-leaning than Grand County, UT itself (D+9.5).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Salt Lake County, UT39D+10.2
- San Juan County, UT33R+16.3
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Salt Lake County, UT37
- Mesa County, CO32
- San Juan County, UT32
Migration is one input to a place’s political change, not its cause — a shift can also come from residents changing their minds, generational turnover, or turnout. These figures describe the places people moved between; they do not measure how any mover voted.
| Year | Net domestic migration |
|---|---|
| 2011 | −76 |
| 2012 | +22 |
| 2013 | −27 |
| 2014 | +28 |
| 2015 | +27 |
| 2016 | +27 |
| 2017 | −52 |
| 2018 | +75 |
| 2019 | +43 |
| 2021 | −33 |
| 2022 | +70 |
| 2023 | −110 |
| 2024 | −149 |
| 2025 | +44 |
Home to Moab and the gateway to Arches and Canyonlands, Grand County draws an unusually high share of outdoor-recreation workers and transplants, producing a consistent Democratic lean that stands out sharply against Utah's statewide Republican margins.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 80.8 points in 1896 and a Republican high of 52.2 points in 1956. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 1.3 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 9.5 points.
A population of 9,754, a 78% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $67,106 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Teton County and Deschutes County.
The counties whose fingerprint — 2000–2024 trajectory, demographics, ancestry, religion — sits closest to this one, and why.
Twin score (0–100) = weighted cosine between tier-standardized fingerprints: presidential margins 2000–2024 with 12-yr trend and elasticity, ACS income, age, education, population and race, top reported ancestries, and religious adherence — chips name the closest-shared dimensions and the widest gap. Re-weight the groups in the twins explorer.
Browse places by community — income, education, race & ethnicity, language — all community cuts →
Compare two places, side by side
Twelve curated comparisons line up election history, demographics, and the divergence story for two places at a glance. Browse all comparisons →
Grand County, Utah. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/49019/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.