- Lead
- 1,670
- Total
- 2,811
- vs nation
- R+57.9
- Turnout
- 70.7%
Garfield County, UT
▦ precinct · ▥ counties · ▢ no spatial detail
President margin by year
Place winner margin
President results by year
2024 turnout 70.7% of 4,041 citizens 18+
- Lead
- 1,644
- Total
- 2,732
- vs nation
- R+64.6
- Turnout
- 74.6%
- Lead
- 1,207
- Total
- 2,363
- vs nation
- R+54.9
- Turnout
- 66.3%
- Lead
- 1,524
- Total
- 2,182
- vs nation
- R+73.7
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 1,305
- Total
- 2,159
- vs nation
- R+67.7
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 1,584
- Total
- 2,162
- vs nation
- R+70.8
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 1,541
- Total
- 1,968
- vs nation
- R+78.8
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 1,047
- Total
- 1,847
- vs nation
- R+65.2
- Turnout
- —
Key facts
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+59.4MIT Election Lab
- Population
- 5,2192024 5-year
- Population density
- 1.0 / sq mi2024 5-year · TIGER/Line
- Land area
- 5,180 sq miTIGER/Line
- Median household income
- $61,8752024 5-year
- White (non-Hispanic)
- 89.7%2024 5-year
- Black
- 0.1%2024 5-year
- Hispanic / Latino
- 7.3%2024 5-year
- Peak Democratic margin
- D+42.4 in 1896MIT Election Lab
- Peak Republican margin
- R+78.3 in 2000MIT Election Lab
- Most similar
- Rich County, UT · twin score 95.8
Turnout and midterm durability
Participation measured against the same-year citizen voting-age population. Audited cycles count total general-election participants — ballots or participating voters, not presidential candidate votes. Cycles before 2016 predate that series and are derived from the certified presidential returns instead; they are marked everywhere they appear and are excluded from the figures below.
- 2024 turnout
- 70.7%2,857 participants ÷ 4,041 CVAP
- 2020→2022 drop-off
- +12.6 ptsVolatile
- Drop-off vs state
- -12.7 ptsPositive means a larger decline than the statewide pattern
- Mechanical 2026
- 58.1%–61.3%Recent-cycle and two-cycle persistence scenarios; not a forecast
Select a presidential cycle to show it on the map and results ledger above.
| Cycle | Participants | CVAP | Turnout | Series | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,857 | 4,041 ± 118 | 70.7% | Audited | A/A | |
| 2022Mid | 2,409 | 3,890 ± 178 | 61.9% | Audited | A/A |
| 2,763 | 3,705 ± 123 | 74.6% | Audited | A/A | |
| 2018Mid | 2,198 | 3,654 ± 102 | 60.2% | Audited | A/A |
| 2,394 | 3,611 ± 74 | 66.3% | Audited | A/A | |
| 2,182 | 3,678 | 59.3% | Derived | — | |
| 2,159 | 3,186 | 67.8% | Derived | — | |
| 2,162 | 2,694 extrapolated | 80.3% | Derived | — |
Sources and methods
Audited cycles (2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024) count total general-election participants against the same-year CVAP special tabulation, each cell carrying its own numerator and denominator quality grade. Derived cycles (2004, 2008, 2012) come from the certified presidential returns on this page over the ACS 5-year CVAP series, so they measure presidential votes cast rather than ballots — a floor on participation. Where a derived cycle predates the ACS its denominator is extrapolated rather than read, and says so on its own line below. They are shown for the longer arc and are excluded from the drop-off, excess-drop-off, and 2026 scenario figures above.
- 2024: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 311/228.
- 2022: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 306/183.
- 2020: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 301/2.
- 2018: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 297/138.
- 2016: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 293/111.
- 2012 (derived): Certified presidential returns · ACS 5-year CVAP (B05003); presidential votes cast — a floor on participation, not a ballot count.
- 2008 (derived): Certified presidential returns · ACS 5-year CVAP (B05003); presidential votes cast — a floor on participation, not a ballot count.
- 2004 (derived): Certified presidential returns · extrapolated CVAP denominator; presidential votes cast — a floor on participation, not a ballot count; 2004 predates the ACS, so the denominator is a linear back-extrapolation from the 2008 and 2012 CVAP values, not a read figure.
Interactive election map
One map. Every available contest.
The map and local result cover Garfield County only. The complete district District 3 result is shown below for comparison.
Garfield County result
0 precinct units · 0 candidate votes
District District 3 result
Loading the complete contest result…
Explore precinct resultsSearch, sort, compare years, or export CSV · 11 precincts
Precinct data
Results by precinct
11 precincts · 2,809 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -PA7PA7 | 68 | 575 | 10 | 653 | 10.4% | 88.1% | R+77.6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -PA8PA8 | 78 | 470 | 5 | 553 | 14.1% | 85.0% | R+70.9 |
| Precinct -ES4ES4 | 150 | 324 | 14 | 488 | 30.7% | 66.4% | R+35.7 |
| Precinct -TR10TR10 | 34 | 258 | 2 | 294 | 11.6% | 87.8% | R+76.2 |
| Precinct -BO2BO2 | 130 | 83 | 19 | 232 | 56.0% | 35.8% | D+20.3 |
| Precinct -HA5HA5 | 38 | 185 | 1 | 224 | 17.0% | 82.6% | R+65.6 |
| Precinct -HE6HE6 | 23 | 107 | 5 | 135 | 17.0% | 79.3% | R+62.2 |
| Precinct -CA3CA3 | 3 | 87 | 3 | 93 | 3.2% | 93.5% | R+90.3 |
| Precinct -AN1AN1 | 6 | 61 | 0 | 67 | 9.0% | 91.0% | R+82.1 |
| Precinct -BR11BR11 | 8 | 40 | 0 | 48 | 16.7% | 83.3% | R+66.7 |
| Precinct -TI9TI9 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 22 | 13.6% | 86.4% | R+72.7 |
presidential history
Party record book
Garfield County, UT · the strongest Democratic and Republican presidential performances recorded here, measured three ways.
1896–2024 · 33 presidential cycles
Highest vote share
Largest share of the presidential candidate vote cast here.
Democratic
William J. Bryan1896
71.2%
615 votes · D+42.4
Runner-up · Woodrow Wilson, 1916 · 61.3%
Republican
George W. Bush2000
87.3%
1,719 votes · R+78.3
Runner-up · George W. Bush, 2004 · 85.5%
Most votes
Largest number of votes cast for the party’s presidential nominee here.
Democratic
Franklin D. Roosevelt1936
928votes
52.4% of the vote · D+4.9
Runner-up · Woodrow Wilson, 1916 · 843 votes
Republican
Donald Trump2024
2,211votes
78.7% of the vote · R+59.4
Runner-up · Donald Trump, 2020 · 2,158 votes
Best relative to the U.S.
This Place’s margin against the national margin in the same election — positive when it leaned toward the party more than the country did.
Democratic
William J. Bryan1896
+48.4pts D vs U.S.
Place D+42.4 · U.S. R+6.1
Runner-up · Woodrow Wilson, 1916 · +20.6 pts
Republican
George W. Bush2000
+78.8pts R vs U.S.
Place R+78.3 · U.S. D+0.5
Runner-up · Mitt Romney, 2012 · +73.7 pts
Current officeholders
Seats representing Garfield County, UT. A county elects none of these itself — they are the members for the 1 congressional, 2 state senate and 1 state house districts it falls inside, so parts of the county are represented by different members.
Senate and governor results are in the Office selector at the top of this page.
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.
Registered voters
By party of registration, over time
Registration leans Republican; the presidential vote runs 8.2 points more Democratic than the rolls.
3,242 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
−69 net domestic migration · 2025
Net −154 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $62,955 in average income, against $95,447 for residents who stayed — 34% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
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 | −57 |
| 2012 | −107 |
| 2013 | −59 |
| 2014 | −41 |
| 2015 | −63 |
| 2016 | −20 |
| 2017 | +41 |
| 2018 | −23 |
| 2019 | +33 |
| 2021 | +40 |
| 2022 | +132 |
| 2023 | +59 |
| 2024 | −20 |
| 2025 | −69 |
Garfield County stretches across a vast slice of Utah's canyon country, including much of Grand Staircase-Escalante, and its sparse, rural electorate has delivered Republican presidential margins above 55 points in every cycle this decade.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 42.4 points in 1896 and a Republican high of 78.3 points in 2000. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 0.8 points toward the Democratic candidate; the 2024 margin was 59.4 points.
A population of 5,219, a 90% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $61,875 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Rich County and Fremont 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 →
Garfield County, Utah. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/49017/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.