Cache County, Utah
Precinct data
Results by precinct
108 precincts · 60,190 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -HYR05:II | 362 | 1,038 | 48 | 1,448 | 25.0% | 71.7% | R+46.7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -HYD03:II | 339 | 865 | 27 | 1,231 | 27.5% | 70.3% | R+42.7 |
| Precinct -NIB02:II | 300 | 806 | 49 | 1,155 | 26.0% | 69.8% | R+43.8 |
| Precinct -LOG01:II | 497 | 597 | 46 | 1,140 | 43.6% | 52.4% | R+8.8 |
| Precinct -SMI02:II | 258 | 812 | 44 | 1,114 | 23.2% | 72.9% | R+49.7 |
| Precinct -NLG02:II | 408 | 652 | 34 | 1,094 | 37.3% | 59.6% | R+22.3 |
| Precinct -SMI07:II | 265 | 781 | 48 | 1,094 | 24.2% | 71.4% | R+47.2 |
| Precinct -NLG04:II | 302 | 745 | 42 | 1,089 | 27.7% | 68.4% | R+40.7 |
| Precinct -HYR04:II | 227 | 796 | 47 | 1,070 | 21.2% | 74.4% | R+53.2 |
| Precinct -MIL01:II | 215 | 825 | 27 | 1,067 | 20.1% | 77.3% | R+57.2 |
| Precinct -LOG05:II | 402 | 541 | 46 | 989 | 40.6% | 54.7% | R+14.1 |
| Precinct -NIB04:II | 201 | 755 | 26 | 982 | 20.5% | 76.9% | R+56.4 |
| Precinct -NLG01:II | 405 | 538 | 36 | 979 | 41.4% | 55.0% | R+13.6 |
| Precinct -PRO03:II | 260 | 684 | 31 | 975 | 26.7% | 70.2% | R+43.5 |
| Precinct -HYD02:II | 302 | 601 | 33 | 936 | 32.3% | 64.2% | R+31.9 |
| Precinct -LOG16:II | 465 | 432 | 39 | 936 | 49.7% | 46.2% | D+3.5 |
| Precinct -SMI01:II | 229 | 652 | 54 | 935 | 24.5% | 69.7% | R+45.2 |
| Precinct -LOG04:II | 400 | 474 | 48 | 922 | 43.4% | 51.4% | R+8.0 |
| Precinct -SMI05:II | 258 | 627 | 36 | 921 | 28.0% | 68.1% | R+40.1 |
| Precinct -LEW01:II | 156 | 734 | 27 | 917 | 17.0% | 80.0% | R+63.0 |
| Precinct -LOG18:IAIA | 447 | 408 | 44 | 899 | 49.7% | 45.4% | D+4.3 |
| Precinct -PRO02:IAIA | 278 | 582 | 29 | 889 | 31.3% | 65.5% | R+34.2 |
| Precinct -HYR03:II | 186 | 641 | 20 | 847 | 22.0% | 75.7% | R+53.7 |
| Precinct -NIB03:II | 213 | 612 | 20 | 845 | 25.2% | 72.4% | R+47.2 |
| Precinct -LOG20:II | 400 | 422 | 21 | 843 | 47.4% | 50.1% | R+2.6 |
| Precinct -RVH01:II | 313 | 494 | 29 | 836 | 37.4% | 59.1% | R+21.7 |
| Precinct -LOG02:II | 358 | 443 | 34 | 835 | 42.9% | 53.1% | R+10.2 |
| Precinct -WEL01:II | 131 | 683 | 18 | 832 | 15.7% | 82.1% | R+66.3 |
| Precinct -PRO04:II | 298 | 495 | 30 | 823 | 36.2% | 60.1% | R+23.9 |
| Precinct -PRO06:II | 232 | 551 | 30 | 813 | 28.5% | 67.8% | R+39.2 |
| Precinct -LOG12:II | 320 | 444 | 38 | 802 | 39.9% | 55.4% | R+15.5 |
| Precinct -HYD01:II | 247 | 530 | 21 | 798 | 31.0% | 66.4% | R+35.5 |
| Precinct -LOG10:II | 430 | 322 | 34 | 786 | 54.7% | 41.0% | D+13.7 |
| Precinct -LOG21:IAIA | 343 | 422 | 21 | 786 | 43.6% | 53.7% | R+10.1 |
| Precinct -MEN02:II | 150 | 606 | 28 | 784 | 19.1% | 77.3% | R+58.2 |
| Precinct -SMI03:II | 211 | 540 | 33 | 784 | 26.9% | 68.9% | R+42.0 |
| Precinct -NLG06:II | 299 | 446 | 38 | 783 | 38.2% | 57.0% | R+18.8 |
| Precinct -PRO05:II | 244 | 493 | 24 | 761 | 32.1% | 64.8% | R+32.7 |
| Precinct -LOG24:II | 273 | 461 | 26 | 760 | 35.9% | 60.7% | R+24.7 |
| Precinct -NLG05:II | 269 | 452 | 32 | 753 | 35.7% | 60.0% | R+24.3 |
| Precinct -LOG09:II | 281 | 426 | 37 | 744 | 37.8% | 57.3% | R+19.5 |
| Precinct -SMI06:II | 201 | 520 | 21 | 742 | 27.1% | 70.1% | R+43.0 |
| Precinct -NLG03:II | 213 | 501 | 26 | 740 | 28.8% | 67.7% | R+38.9 |
| Precinct -RCH01:II | 130 | 584 | 22 | 736 | 17.7% | 79.3% | R+61.7 |
| Precinct -LOG17:II | 362 | 337 | 29 | 728 | 49.7% | 46.3% | D+3.4 |
| Precinct -RCH02:II | 138 | 555 | 15 | 708 | 19.5% | 78.4% | R+58.9 |
| Precinct -SMI04:II | 193 | 489 | 21 | 703 | 27.5% | 69.6% | R+42.1 |
| Precinct -HYR01:II | 181 | 487 | 27 | 695 | 26.0% | 70.1% | R+44.0 |
| Precinct -LOG14:II | 328 | 338 | 29 | 695 | 47.2% | 48.6% | R+1.4 |
| Precinct -NIB01:IAIA | 187 | 483 | 15 | 685 | 27.3% | 70.5% | R+43.2 |
| Precinct -LOG23:II | 242 | 388 | 32 | 662 | 36.6% | 58.6% | R+22.1 |
| Precinct -LOG08:II | 357 | 269 | 25 | 651 | 54.8% | 41.3% | D+13.5 |
| Precinct -HYR02:II | 132 | 486 | 15 | 633 | 20.9% | 76.8% | R+55.9 |
| Precinct -LOG19:II | 324 | 285 | 24 | 633 | 51.2% | 45.0% | D+6.2 |
| Precinct -WEL03:II | 83 | 516 | 12 | 611 | 13.6% | 84.5% | R+70.9 |
| Precinct -WEL02:II | 122 | 461 | 14 | 597 | 20.4% | 77.2% | R+56.8 |
| Precinct -LOG06:II | 224 | 333 | 29 | 586 | 38.2% | 56.8% | R+18.6 |
| Precinct -MEN02:UU | 112 | 445 | 22 | 579 | 19.3% | 76.9% | R+57.5 |
| Precinct -LOG07:II | 278 | 250 | 26 | 554 | 50.2% | 45.1% | D+5.1 |
| Precinct -PAR:II | 76 | 453 | 11 | 540 | 14.1% | 83.9% | R+69.8 |
| Precinct -LOG13:II | 284 | 230 | 16 | 530 | 53.6% | 43.4% | D+10.2 |
| Precinct -PAR:UU | 93 | 407 | 14 | 514 | 18.1% | 79.2% | R+61.1 |
| Precinct -PRO01:IAIA | 136 | 362 | 14 | 512 | 26.6% | 70.7% | R+44.1 |
| Precinct -LOG03:II | 237 | 258 | 15 | 510 | 46.5% | 50.6% | R+4.1 |
| Precinct -SMI08:II | 113 | 377 | 9 | 499 | 22.6% | 75.6% | R+52.9 |
| Precinct -LOG15:II | 180 | 306 | 12 | 498 | 36.1% | 61.4% | R+25.3 |
| Precinct -CY:UU | 85 | 391 | 17 | 493 | 17.2% | 79.3% | R+62.1 |
| Precinct -NEW:II | 78 | 371 | 11 | 460 | 17.0% | 80.7% | R+63.7 |
| Precinct -LOG11:II | 212 | 167 | 18 | 397 | 53.4% | 42.1% | D+11.3 |
| Precinct -LOG22:II | 134 | 239 | 18 | 391 | 34.3% | 61.1% | R+26.9 |
| Precinct -CLK:II | 50 | 324 | 10 | 384 | 13.0% | 84.4% | R+71.4 |
| Precinct -BEN:UU | 67 | 296 | 9 | 372 | 18.0% | 79.6% | R+61.6 |
| Precinct -LOG25:II | 109 | 205 | 16 | 330 | 33.0% | 62.1% | R+29.1 |
| Precinct -RVH02:II | 111 | 166 | 9 | 286 | 38.8% | 58.0% | R+19.2 |
| Precinct -LOG24:CSD2CSD2 | 86 | 173 | 11 | 270 | 31.9% | 64.1% | R+32.2 |
| Precinct -TRE:II | 35 | 218 | 5 | 258 | 13.6% | 84.5% | R+70.9 |
| Precinct -COV:UU | 34 | 211 | 7 | 252 | 13.5% | 83.7% | R+70.2 |
| Precinct -WEL03:UU | 38 | 204 | 2 | 244 | 15.6% | 83.6% | R+68.0 |
| Precinct -AMA:II | 37 | 189 | 4 | 230 | 16.1% | 82.2% | R+66.1 |
| Precinct -LOG24:CSD3CSD3 | 102 | 113 | 7 | 222 | 45.9% | 50.9% | R+5.0 |
| Precinct -LOG18:CSDCSD | 104 | 95 | 1 | 200 | 52.0% | 47.5% | D+4.5 |
| Precinct -SMI07:UU | 29 | 142 | 6 | 177 | 16.4% | 80.2% | R+63.8 |
| Precinct -WEL01:U1U1 | 31 | 139 | 1 | 171 | 18.1% | 81.3% | R+63.2 |
| Precinct -HYR01:UU | 28 | 126 | 3 | 157 | 17.8% | 80.3% | R+62.4 |
| Precinct -MEN01:UU | 23 | 125 | 6 | 154 | 14.9% | 81.2% | R+66.2 |
| Precinct -COR:II | 11 | 106 | 3 | 120 | 9.2% | 88.3% | R+79.2 |
| Precinct -NEW:UU | 16 | 101 | 1 | 118 | 13.6% | 85.6% | R+72.0 |
| Precinct -SMI06:UU | 8 | 87 | 6 | 101 | 7.9% | 86.1% | R+78.2 |
| Precinct -HYR04:U2U2 | 8 | 73 | 1 | 82 | 9.8% | 89.0% | R+79.3 |
| Precinct -MIL02:II | 16 | 61 | 2 | 79 | 20.3% | 77.2% | R+57.0 |
| Precinct -RCH02:U2U2 | 12 | 55 | 2 | 69 | 17.4% | 79.7% | R+62.3 |
| Precinct -LOG22:CSDCSD | 34 | 26 | 2 | 62 | 54.8% | 41.9% | D+12.9 |
| Precinct -SMI01:U1U1 | 4 | 53 | 0 | 57 | 7.0% | 93.0% | R+86.0 |
| Precinct -NIB04:UU | 10 | 38 | 5 | 53 | 18.9% | 71.7% | R+52.8 |
| Precinct -COV:U2U2 | 7 | 43 | 1 | 51 | 13.7% | 84.3% | R+70.6 |
| Precinct -MIL02:U1U1 | 9 | 39 | 3 | 51 | 17.6% | 76.5% | R+58.8 |
| Precinct -NLG04:UU | 9 | 38 | 0 | 47 | 19.1% | 80.9% | R+61.7 |
| Precinct -CLK:U1U1 | 7 | 33 | 1 | 41 | 17.1% | 80.5% | R+63.4 |
| Precinct -RCH01:U3U3 | 6 | 33 | 0 | 39 | 15.4% | 84.6% | R+69.2 |
| Precinct -HYD02:U1U1 | 4 | 31 | 1 | 36 | 11.1% | 86.1% | R+75.0 |
| Precinct -NIB01:U3U3 | 5 | 29 | 2 | 36 | 13.9% | 80.6% | R+66.7 |
| Precinct -WEL02:UU | 3 | 31 | 0 | 34 | 8.8% | 91.2% | R+82.4 |
| Precinct -SMI02:UU | 18 | 14 | 0 | 32 | 56.3% | 43.8% | D+12.5 |
| Precinct -RCH02:U1U1 | 1 | 23 | 1 | 25 | 4.0% | 92.0% | R+88.0 |
| Precinct -HYR05:U1U1 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 21 | 9.5% | 90.5% | R+81.0 |
| Precinct -SMI05:UU | 7 | 12 | 0 | 19 | 36.8% | 63.2% | R+26.3 |
| Precinct -COR:UU | 3 | 14 | 0 | 17 | 17.6% | 82.4% | R+64.7 |
| Precinct -HYR03:UU | 3 | 11 | 0 | 14 | 21.4% | 78.6% | R+57.1 |
Presidential margin, 1896–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1896 | +67.9% |
| 1900 | +4.4% |
| 1904 | −15.0% |
| 1908 | −6.6% |
| 1912 | +6.3% |
| 1916 | +16.9% |
| 1920 | −8.8% |
| 1924 | −11.1% |
| 1928 | −5.5% |
| 1932 | +14.8% |
| 1936 | +44.7% |
| 1940 | +20.5% |
| 1944 | +17.2% |
| 1948 | −1.0% |
| 1952 | −41.1% |
| 1956 | −47.6% |
| 1960 | −35.3% |
| 1964 | −16.9% |
| 1968 | −43.8% |
| 1972 | −58.2% |
| 1976 | −48.3% |
| 1980 | −64.6% |
| 1984 | −68.1% |
| 1988 | −56.8% |
| 1992 | −35.8% |
| 1996 | −38.8% |
| 2000 | −62.6% |
| 2004 | −65.7% |
| 2008 | −45.6% |
| 2012 | −68.1% |
| 2016 | −26.9% |
| 2020 | −36.6% |
| 2024 | −34.4% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
By party of registration, over time
Registration leans Republican; the presidential vote runs 14 points more Republican.
70,456 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
−1,164 net domestic migration · 2025
Net −712 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $48,397 in average income, against $89,542 for residents who stayed — 46% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+25.4 on average — 9.0 points more Democratic-leaning than Cache County, UT itself (R+34.4).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Salt Lake County, UT428D+10.2
- Utah County, UT318R+39.8
- Davis County, UT286R+24.9
- Box Elder County, UT202R+60.8
- Weber County, UT196R+23.5
- Franklin County, ID116R+77.6
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Salt Lake County, UT596
- Utah County, UT356
- Davis County, UT317
- Weber County, UT232
- Box Elder County, UT203
- Franklin County, ID131
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 | −786 |
| 2012 | −1,082 |
| 2013 | −908 |
| 2014 | −1,253 |
| 2015 | −176 |
| 2016 | +468 |
| 2017 | −46 |
| 2018 | +304 |
| 2019 | +7 |
| 2021 | +2,412 |
| 2022 | +1,177 |
| 2023 | +454 |
| 2024 | −119 |
| 2025 | −1,164 |
Despite hosting a major land-grant university, Cache County delivers some of Utah's most lopsided Republican margins, suggesting the student population has limited effect on the county's overall partisan tilt.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 67.9 points in 1896 and a Republican high of 68.1 points in 1984. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 2.2 points toward the Democratic candidate; the 2024 margin was 34.4 points.
A population of 140,046, a 81% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $81,665 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Utah County and Davis 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 →
Cache County, Utah. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/49005/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.