Election forecasts you can inspect.Tested models, shown with their sources and their uncertainty.

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Utah Senate

Utah Senate District 18

2026 forecast · Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

<1% chance of a Democratic win · A Dane Anderson (D), Doug Fiefia (R)

Utah Senate District 18: ForecastUtah Senate 11: chance of a Democratic win <1%Utah Senate 17: not up in 2026 (held by republican); 2024 president D+2Utah Senate 19: chance of a Democratic win 1%Utah Senate 22: not up in 2026 (held by republican); 2024 president R+36Utah Senate District 18: Forecast17191118
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 18 is safe Republican. Of its 4 neighbouring districts, 4 favour Republicans.

StatusForecast
Chance of a Democratic win<1%
Likely margin (80% range)R+45 to R+23, middle R+34
CandidatesA Dane Anderson (D), Doug Fiefia (R)
Candidate list fromofficial (archive copy)
Current memberDan McCay

How it has voted

On its current lines. Legislative contests and the top-of-ticket vote inside the district.

Legislature 2022R+40
← RepublicanDemocratic →

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtUtah
Median household income$116,621$91,750
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)38%37%
Median age3132
White (not Hispanic)82%76%
Black0%1%
Hispanic10%15%
Asian2%2%
Born abroad6%9%
Jobs in manufacturing8%10%
Jobs in farming or mining1%1%

Initial version. This model was tested on every state legislative election from 1994 to 2024 before publication, forecasting each as if it had not happened. It beat the simple rule “the party that holds the seat keeps it”, and its chamber seat counts were off by 2.9 seats on average (target: under 3). Districts with no two-party race last time are read from their own presidential vote, a change tested in advance that cut their average error from 17 to 13 points. It missed one of its five accuracy targets: in 2024, the calmest year on record, its ranges were wider than they needed to be (92% of results fell inside its 80% ranges; target: at most 88%). Treat the ranges as cautious. The full test record and code.