In the United States, electoral fraud, or voter fraud,[1] involves illegal voting in or manipulation of United States elections. Types of fraud include voter impersonation or in-person voter fraud, mail-in or absentee ballot fraud, illegal voting by noncitizens, and double voting.[2][3][4] The United States government defines voter or ballot fraud as one of three broad categories of federal election crimes, the other two being campaign finance crimes and civil rights violations.[1][5]
Electoral fraud is extremely rare in the United States, with experts saying mail-in voter fraud occurs more often than in-person voter fraud.[6][7] In the last half-century, there have been only scattered examples of electoral fraud affecting the outcomes of United States elections, mostly on the local level.[8] Electoral fraud was significantly more prevalent in earlier United States history, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries,[9] and has long been a significant topic in American politics.[10][11] False accusations of electoral fraud also have a long history, and since the 2016 and 2020 elections have often been associated with Donald Trump and the election denial movement in the United States.[12][13]
Electoral fraud is extremely rare in the United States,[21] and it is often accidental when it occurs.[22][23] Fraud is more likely to occur in and affect the outcome of local elections, where the potential impact of a small number of votes can be greater.[8][24][25][26] Some experts have said voter fraud can be difficult to prove,[31] depending on the circumstances,[32][33] although they consider widespread cheating easy to detect.[34][35]
In 2012, News21, an Arizona State University journalism project, published a database of 2,068 alleged electoral fraud cases reported between 2000 and 2012.[36] This represented about 0.000003 cases for every vote cast. 46 percent of cases also resulted in acquittals, dropped charges or decisions not to bring charges.[37] News21 gathered the information by sending public records requests to elections officials and prosecutors and reviewing court records and media reports and created the most comprehensive database to-date of electoral fraud despite not being able to obtain data from all jurisdictions.[36] The database also includes instances of voter intimidation.[38]
The conservative Heritage Foundation publishes an incomplete database of electoral fraud cases brought by prosecutors since 1979.[39][40][41] As of November 2023, there were 1,465 proven cases of election fraud listed in 44 years, an average of 33 cases per year. This represents a tiny fraction of total votes. In Texas, for example, Heritage found 103 cases of confirmed election fraud between 2005 and 2022, in a period where 107 million ballots were cast, or 0.000096% of all ballots cast.[42] Heritage has stated that the database is only a "sampling" and not comprehensive.[43]
Voter impersonation, or in-person voter fraud, is extremely rare.[53] Between 1978 and 2018, no elections were overturned by courts due to voter impersonation fraud.[54] Cases of voter impersonation are often difficult to prove.[55][56] Rutgers professor Lorraine Minnite has maintained that voter impersonation is illogical from the perspective of the perpetrator due to the high risk and limited upside of casting one vote.[57] If caught, perpetrators of voter impersonation can face up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 for citizens and deportation for immigrants.[57] Proponents of voter identification laws have argued that it can be difficult to detect voter impersonation if voter ID is not required.[58][59][60] University of Virginia law professor Michael D. Gilbert agreed with Minnite in 2014 that theory and evidence suggest voter impersonation "rarely occurs", though agreed with voter ID proponents that "the failure to observe fraud does not mean that no fraud takes place". Gilbert noted that it is difficult for someone to coordinate widespread voter impersonation to steal an election, as even if they paid people to vote in-person for their preferred candidate, the secret ballot ensures they could not confirm whether these people voted the way they were paid to.[61]
ABC News reported in 2012 that only four cases of voter impersonation had led to convictions in Texas over the previous decade.[57] News21 identified a total of 10 cases of alleged voter impersonation in the United States between 2000 and 2012.[62][63] Another 2012 study found no evidence that voter impersonation (in the form of people voting under the auspices of a dead voter) occurred in the 2006 Georgia general elections.[64] In a 2013 study, the New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) sent investigators to vote under the names of 63 ineligible voters, who were either deceased, felons or had moved outside New York City. 61 of those investigators were allowed to illegally vote under their assumed identities. One of the two who was not allowed to vote was recognized by the mother of the felon they were impersonating, who worked at the polling place. In five instances, investigators in their 20s or 30s successfully posed as voters age 82 to 94. The DOI report stated that this result, while not large enough to be statistically significant, "indicates vulnerability in the system".[65][66][needs update]
In April 2014, Federal District Court Judge Lynn Adelman ruled in Frank v. Walker that Wisconsin's voter ID law was unconstitutional because "virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin".[67] A 2014 Election Law Journal study of the 2012 election found no evidence of widespread voter impersonation.[68][69] In August 2014, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt reported in The Washington Post 's Wonkblog that he had identified only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation since 2000.[70][71] The most serious incident identified involved as many as 24 people trying to vote under assumed names in Brooklyn, which would still not have made a significant difference in most American elections.[70] News21 reviewed cases of possible voter impersonation between 2012 and 2016 in five states where politicians had expressed concerns about it, and found no successful state prosecutions for voter impersonation (out of 38 for voter fraud).[72]
While quite rare, experts say fraud occurs more often with mailed-in votes than with in-person voting.[85] Between 1978 and 2018, at least fourteen elections were invalidated or overturned by courts due to absentee ballot fraud, twelve of which were at the local level (for such offices as county clerk, sheriff, judge, and mayor).[54] Postal ballots have been the source of "most significant vote-counting disputes in recent decades" according to Edward Foley, director of the Election Law program at Ohio State University.[86] In 2012, The New York Times wrote that according to election administrators, fraud in voting by mail was "far less common than innocent errors" but "vastly more prevalent" than in-person voting fraud.[87] University of Chicago political scientist Anthony Fowler said in 2020 that fraudulently voting on behalf of someone else, tampering with ballots, coercion or vote buying could all be easier with mail-in ballots, but that in practice "the risk of widespread fraud is probably very minimal, even with all-mail elections".[88]
Loyola Marymount professor Justin Levitt stated in 2020 that misconduct in mail voting is "meaningfully more prevalent" than with voting in person, but that misconduct "still amounts to only a tiny fraction" of mail ballots.[84] Lonna Atkeson, an expert in election administration, said about mail-in voting fraud, "It's really hard to find ... The fact is, we really don't know how much fraud there is ... There aren't millions of fraudulent votes, but there are some."[84] Lorraine Minnite said "my sense is that it is not much more frequent than in-person voter fraud, which rarely occurs."[84] Richard Hasen, a professor at University of California, Irvine School of Law, said that "problems are extremely rare in the five states that rely primarily on vote-by-mail."[84]
An analysis by News21 found 491 known cases of absentee ballot fraud between 2000 and 2012.[84][89][90][91] In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of mail-in ballot fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.00006 percent" of individual votes nationally, and, in one state, "0.000004 percent – about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning in the United States."[92] A 2020 Washington Post analysis of data from three vote-by-mail states (Colorado, Oregon and Washington), with help from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), found that out of about 14.6 million mail votes cast in 2016 and 2018 officials had flagged just 372 possible[needs update] cases of double voting or voting on behalf of deceased people.[93]
Ballot harvesting, or third parties collecting and delivering absentee ballots for voters, is legal in some states but illegal or restricted in others.[94][95] Other types of absentee ballot fraud have included ballot stuffing in absentee drop boxes;[96] coercion of voters, since the ballot is not always cast in secret;[97][98][99] requesting absentee ballots on behalf of other voters;[100][101] ballots being stolen from the mail and submitted;[102] and collection of ballots by dishonest collectors who mark votes or fail to deliver ballots.[103] In many cases, ballot drop boxes are placed in locations where they can be monitored by security cameras or election staff.[104]
Illegal voting by noncitizens is extremely rare.[122] This is due in part to the more severe penalties associated with the practice including deportation, up to five years of incarceration or fines, as well as the jeopardizing of naturalization efforts.[123][124][125] The federal form to register a voter requires a unique identification number such as a Social Security or driver's license number. New voters must check a box attesting that they are a citizen, though are not required to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering.[126][115] States typically have safeguards to prevent noncitizen voting, with voter registration and casting a ballot creating a paper trail.[127][128] The extent to which states verify citizenship of voters differs.[126][129] When noncitizens are added to voter rolls, it is usually by mistake, as the result of a federal law that requires states to offer people voter registration when they visit a motor vehicle office.[130] Sometimes it also appears that more noncitizens are on voter rolls than there are because they became naturalized citizens but have not yet been back to the DMV to update their citizenship status in the DMV database.[131]
All the research into voter rolls have found very few noncitizen voters.[132][133] As of July 2024, The Heritage Foundation database includes only 24 noncitizen voting cases from between 2003 and 2023.[134][135][136][40] In an audit of the 2016 elections, the North Carolina State Board of Elections found that 41 out of 4.8 million total votes were by noncitizens,[137] and between 2017 and 2024, only three cases were referred for prosecution.[138] In 2018, CNN reported that in the past three years, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach had convicted three noncitizens of voting out of 1.8 million voters.[139] A Brennan Center for Justice study of 2016 data from 42 jurisdictions found an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting out of 23.5 million votes cast (or .0001% of votes).[124][140] A review in Georgia found that no potential noncitizens had been allowed to register to vote between 1997 and 2022.[109] In September 2024, an audit in Oregon found that more than 1,200 possible noncitizens had been added to the state's voter rolls by mistake; the issue was quickly fixed and no more than 5 noncitizens had cast ballots.[141][116][142]
Some prominent Republicans such as House Speaker Mike Johnson have argued that widespread noncitizen voting is a threat, though such claims have been entirely unsupported by evidence.[106][143][144] At a May 8, 2024, press conference in which Johnson demanded that Congress pass an "election integrity" bill to stop noncitizens from voting, reporters pressed him on the lack of evidence. Johnson replied, "We all know intuitively that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it's not been something that is easily provable."[145] Several Republican-led states have flagged and removed purported noncitizens from voter rolls ranging in the hundreds or thousands.[117] These figures have been criticized by voting rights organizations as partisan and erroneously including legal voters, particularly naturalized citizens.[146][147][148] Before the 2014 midterm elections in Florida, then-governor Rick Scott announced a purge of 180,000 suspected foreign nationals from voter rolls, though only 85 names were removed and only one person was prosecuted.[149][150] A widely discredited 2014 estimate of noncitizen voting by Jesse Richman and David Earnest was misused by Donald Trump and others to justify false claims it was widespread.[151][152][153][154] 200 political scientists signed an open letter saying the study should not be cited or used in any debate on voter fraud.[155] In 2020 and 2024, the libertarian Cato Institute said that there was no detectable amount of noncitizen voting.[156][157][158][159][160] Noncitizens who can vote in the few local elections where it is legal rarely cast ballots.[161]
Legal scholar Richard Hasen, who had previously viewed noncitizen voting as a small problem,[166][relevant?] said in 2020 that claims of noncitizen voting "evaporated in the sunlight of public inspection and legal examination." He also said "spurious claims more likely serve as a pretext for passing laws aimed at making it harder for people likely to vote for Democrats to register and vote."[167] San Francisco State University professor and noncitizen voting expert Ron Hayduk referred to noncitizen voting as a "problem that doesn't exist".[115][168] Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post stated there was "scattered evidence" of noncitizen voting and little to support the idea that it ever affected the outcome of a major election, but that the scarcity of evidence "does not necessarily prove that the phenomenon does not happen".[vague][speculation?] He wrote that "if a noncitizen casts a ballot, there is no obvious victim to make a complaint and little public documentation to prove that a voter is not a citizen".[40][undue weight? – discuss][speculation?]
Double voting is considered extremely rare.[171] When someone votes twice within the same state, it is often inadvertent, for example if a voter thinks their absentee ballot will not be delivered in time.[172] As of 2023, the only system that can detect double voting across states is the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which close to half of states participate in.[173] A 2008 Election Law Journal article found that a number of claims from the early 2000s purporting to have found double voters were due largely to the 'Birthday problem', or the statistical probability of people sharing the same name and birthday across multiple states.[174] It noted that substantiated instances of double voting are 'notable mostly for their rarity.'[174] In 2007, the Secretary of State of Washington checked voter signatures to verify whether or not double-voting occurred among people with the same name and birthday, and the check exonerated all but one person.[174]
An American Political Science Review study of voter data from the 2012 United States presidential election estimated that at most 1 in 4,000 voters illegally cast two ballots, though it noted accounting errors could account for most if not all of those numbers.[32] The study found that many apparent double-voters were the result of incorrectly marking someone as having voted.[169] It also concluded that when two voter records share the same name and birthdate, removing the earlier registration could impede approximately 300 legitimate votes for each double vote prevented.[32] Being registered to vote in multiple states without voting in more than one is allowed.[175] The legal definition of double voting varies between states, but voting more than once in a given election is illegal under the Voting Rights Act and comes with a fine of up to $10,000 and up to five years in prison.[176]
In the United States, depending on the state, a person may have their voting rights suspended or withdrawn due to the conviction of a criminal offense, usually a felony. Felons who cast a ballot in those states often do not know that they were ineligible to vote.[177] A North Carolina State Board of Elections audit of the 2016 elections found that 441 felons had voted before their right to vote had been restored.[178] Out of 12 people on probation for a felony who were charged with illegal voting in Alamance County, North Carolina in 2016, five stated in separate interviews with The New York Times that they had thought they were allowed to vote.[179] At least seven pled down to misdemeanors.[180][181] The Guardian reported in 2024 that prosecuting voters who were ineligible due to a felony was the main type of prosecution pursued in Florida.[182] In 2022, Florida governor Ron DeSantis arrested more than 20 people who were ineligible to vote related to a felony conviction, nearly all of whom were confused about their eligibility after having received voter registration cards from the state.[182]
Outdated voter registration has not been linked to voter fraud despite allegations connecting the two.[183] A 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States based on data collected in 2008, found that over 1.8 million dead people were registered to vote nationwide and over 3 million voters were registered in multiple states.[184][183] According to PolitiFact, the study investigated "outdated voter rolls, not fraudulent votes".[183] In an October 2016 Associated Press fact-check, the author noted these voter registration irregularities left some people concerned that the electoral system was vulnerable to the impersonation of dead voters; however, voter rolls with dead voters are usually due to the states being slow to eliminate dead voters. By 2016, most states had addressed concerns raised by the Pew 2012 report.[185] As of October 2024, Michigan had one of the most bloated voter rolls in the nation, with 500,000 more registered voters than citizens of voting age. This has not been connected to fraud, and is caused in part by federal laws restricting the removal of inactive voters.[186] In 2020, the Arizona Attorney General investigated 282 claims of dead people voting and found one which was substantiated. The same year, Republican legislators in Michigan found two dead voters in Wayne County out of a list of 200 supposed cases.[187]
Between 2000 and 2012, News21 found 393 cases of alleged voter registration fraud across 34 states, many of which were linked to third-party voter registration groups such as ACORN. This fraud can include registering fake names, often motivated by quotas for third-party canvassers, and have also not been linked to increased voter fraud.[2][188]
Vote buying is illegal in the United States at the federal level if money is promised to certain individuals to vote or register to vote, though at the state level, most states only criminalize paying people to vote.[189] Promising cash payments to a large number of voters is legal.[190] Courts have also historically considered providing free transport to voters legally permissible.[191] While illegal vote buying has occurred relatively more often in certain areas such as Appalachia, experts say it is rarely an issue in national-level races.[192] Vote buying schemes affected at least six local elections between 2009 and 2012, four of which were in Appalachia.[26] Elon Musk has been accused by some election experts of vote buying in the 2024 United States presidential election, with a lottery to give away $1 million daily to a registered voter who signs a petition he created.[193][194][195][196] Some experts have debated whether Musk paying people $47 for referring a registered voter to the petition, or a program by Cards Against Humanity that would pay up to $100 to 2020 nonvoters who make a plan to vote in 2024, are legal.[197][198] A 2020 study in Acta Politica found that around 25% of Americans would be willing to sell their vote for a minimum payment of $418. Democrats and liberal voters were more likely to sell, and the likelihood was not impacted by education or income levels.[199]
A type of fraud that sometimes occurs is falsification of signatures on nominating petitions or ballot initiatives.[200][201] Experts say that as the cost of gathering paid signatures goes up, there is a greater incentive for this type of fraud.[202] There is a variety of other types of election fraud, with varying prevalence, including:
According to University of Kentucky professor Tracy Campbell, author of the 2005 book Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition – 1742-2004, electoral fraud has historically been "deeply embedded" in American political culture.[10][11][208] In the 1996 book Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics, Larry Sabato and Glenn R. Simpson observed that Democrats "feature prominently in almost all of the instances" of fraud in the 19th and 20th century, although Republicans were also fully capable of fraud "when circumstances permit". Sabato and Simpson posited that Democrats have had more opportunities to commit fraud due to more often having control of both local and legislative offices and a greater percentage of their voter base appearing "to be available or more vulnerable to participation".[209]
Electoral fraud was prevalent in the United States during the 19th century, when safeguards against fraud and electioneering were considerably weaker, and political machines wielded significantly more power. Political parties would produce their own ballots, and as of the mid-19th century, seven states still conducted elections by voice voting. States only began to adopt the secret ballot in the 1880s and 1890s.[9] Voter fraud was so common that it developed its own vocabulary. "Colonizers" were groups of bought voters who moved en masse between wards. "Floaters" cast ballots for multiple parties, and "repeaters" voted multiple times, sometimes in disguise.[211][212] Cooping was a form of fraud where people were kidnapped, drugged and forced to repeatedly vote, and is thought to have contributed to the 1849 death of Edgar Allan Poe.[213][214]
Cheating occurred in all parts of the country. Cities such as New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh had elections influenced by political machines.[215] The Tammany Hall machine in New York City, for example, encouraged residents to vote multiple times by shaving their beards, registered voters under fake names, physically intimidated voters and granted citizenship to newly arrived immigrants.[9] Cheating also regularly occurred in suburban and rural areas. Voter fraud and suppression against African-Americans was common in the Jim Crow South.[9]
In the 1850s Kansas Territory elections, pro-slavery forces seeking to ratify the Lecompton Constitution carried out voter fraud on multiple occasions by importing pro-slavery people from Missouri to cast ballots.[216][217] In the 1876 United States presidential election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, voter fraud was widespread, with South Carolina reporting an impossible 101 percent turnout. Violence and intimidation against Black Republican voters also occurred. In four contested states, Republicans and Democrats filed separate tallies favoring their respective candidates. The election was ultimately decided by the Congress-appointed Electoral Commission in favor of Hayes.[218]
In the 1888 United States presidential election, there was evidence of voter fraud in some states that favored Republican Benjamin Harrison, particularly in his home state of Indiana.[219] Public backlash contributed to the nationwide implementation of secret ballots.[211] Two races in the 1888 United States House of Representatives elections were also overturned due to fraud. In Arkansas, John M. Clayton lost to Clifton R. Breckinridge after a ballot box with a large majority of Clayton votes was stolen. Clayton was assassinated the following year while challenging the election, but was posthumously declared the winner.[220] In Maryland, Barnes Compton was initially elected, but his opponent Sydney E. Mudd successfully contested the election the following year.[221]
Evidence suggests that the 1892 Alabama gubernatorial election, where Reuben Kolb lost to incumbent Thomas Goode Jones, was decided by fraud. This included ballot boxes being stolen, votes being swayed by bribery or threats, and counties in the Black Belt announcing results before later changing them. Kolb was not allowed by law to contest the results, and lost the gubernatorial race in 1894 under similar circumstances.[222]
Electoral fraud caused some notable United States elections in the 20th century to be affected or annulled. Since 1913, four United States Senate races were overturned by the Senate after the losing candidate challenged the outcome.[223] In the early 20th century, electoral fraud was similar in nature to the 19th century.[9] Alabama ratified its 1901 constitution, which remained in effect until 2022, due to widespread electoral fraud in the referendum.[224][225] In the 1905 New York City mayoral election, there was fraud against William Randolph Hearst linked to the Tammany Hall machine. Hearst lost to George McClellan by 3,472 votes.[226] In the 1918 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, Patrick McLane was declared the winner in the 10th district; a congressional committee determined in 1921 that "wholesale fraud" had cheated John R. Farr out of the election, and McLane was unseated.[227] In the 1930s, Huey Long ran a political machine throughout Louisiana with significant voter fraud.[228] Indications of electoral fraud in the 1930 United States Senate election in Louisiana, which Long won, were ubiquitous. According to Long biographer Richard White, "the official record indicated that voters marched to the polls in alphabetical order".[229] In the 1932 United States Senate election in Louisiana, Long's lieutenants allegedly promised the families of inmates that their loved ones would be freed if they voted for Long's endorsed candidate.[228]
In the 1948 United States Senate election in Texas, according to a 1990 book by historian Robert A. Caro, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson won his primary against Coke R. Stevenson due to electoral fraud, which included county officials casting ballots for absent voters and changing vote tally numbers. Johnson won the primary by 87 votes, and the Texas Democratic Party executive committee upheld his victory by a vote of 29 to 28. The event became known as the Box 13 scandal, as six days after polls had closed, 202 additional votes were added to the totals for Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County: 200 for Johnson and two for Stevenson.[40][231][232]
Some historians believe the 1960 United States presidential election in Illinois, which John F. Kennedy won over Richard Nixon, was decided by fraud. Multiple judges and one independent prosecutor determined that the election was fair, although historian Robert Dallek, who wrote biographies on both candidates, concluded the Chicago machine run by mayor Richard J. Daley "probably stole Illinois from Nixon". According to Politico in 2016, "over a half century after the fact, it's impossible to judge what really happened." Nixon lost the Electoral College and conceded the election the following morning, although he encouraged recount efforts in Illinois and other states, which were shut down after setbacks in several key court hearings.[233][234] Between 1968 and 1984, eight Democratic primary elections in Brooklyn, New York, were marked by repeated fraud according to the findings of a grand jury. The fraud included multiple voting by teams of political workers with fake voter registration cards.[235][236]
In the 1982 Illinois elections, there were 62 indictments and 58 convictions for election fraud, many involving precinct captains and election officials. A grand jury concluded that 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago. Authorities found fraud involving vote buying and ballots cast by others in the names of registered voters.[237] The case was prosecuted in November 1982 by U.S. Attorney Dan K. Webb.[238][239] In the 1987 Chicago mayoral election, two reviews conducted by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and an election watchdog group headed by Webb found that tens of thousands of ballots were fraudulently cast in the Democratic primary.[240][241][242] In the 1994 Pennsylvania State Senate election, a federal judge invalidated a race in Philadelphia after finding that the Democratic candidate William G. Stinson had stolen the election through absentee ballot fraud. Republicans took control of the State Senate as a result of the ruling.[243]
In the 1996 United States House of Representatives elections in California, the Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee claimed to have found 748 illegal votes cast in the 46th district race between Republican Bob Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez, including 624 by noncitizens. Sanchez won by 979 votes, so it would not have affected the outcome,[244][245][162] and the House voted to dismiss Dornan's challenge in February 1998.[246] The findings were highly contested[247] and disputed by the Democratic minority on the committee, who pointed out that about half of those who registered as noncitizens were citizens by the time they cast their ballots.[246] No indictments were brought by a grand jury after a yearslong criminal investigation into Hermandad, an immigrant rights group at the center of fraud allegations.[246] The California Secretary of State did not press charges, concluding in April 1998 that the noncitizens identified had registered in error and not from criminal intent.[246]
The 1997 Miami mayoral election is known for being one of the worst examples of electoral fraud in recent history, with a judge invalidating the result for "a pattern of fraudulent, intentional and criminal conduct" in the casting of absentee ballots.[248][249] The neighboring city of Hialeah, Florida had its own mayoral contest overturned in 1993, when a judge ruled that so many ballots had been cast from a retirement home housing schizophrenics and drug addicts that the election had to be re-run.[250]
In the 21st century, there have been scattered examples of electoral fraud affecting the outcome of elections, and attempts at widespread electoral fraud are notable when they occur at all.[40][251] In 2002, 2004 and 2006, eight prominent Clay County, Kentucky politicians were involved in a scheme to gain control of the local board of elections and fix election outcomes. The group notably included a former U.S. circuit judge and former county school superintendent.[192][252] In the 2003 East Chicago, Indiana mayoral election, the Indiana Supreme Court invalidated the Democratic primary citing "a widespread and pervasive pattern" of absentee ballot fraud. Forty-six people, mainly city workers, were found guilty in a wide-ranging conspiracy to purchase votes through the use of absentee ballots, which included the coercion of sick people and people with limited English skills.[8][253][254]
In 2009 and 2010, Massachusetts state representative Stephen Stat Smith illegally cast absentee ballots for voters who were ineligible or unaware of ballots being cast in their names. Smith pled guilty in 2012 and resigned his seat in 2013.[255][256] In 2012, Indiana Secretary of State Charles P. White was convicted of multiple voter fraud-related charges, causing him to lose his position.[257][258] In the 2012 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, Jeffrey Garcia, chief of staff to 26th district incumbent Joe Garcia, was charged with orchestrating a scheme to illegally request nearly 2,000 absentee ballots. Garcia pled guilty to a misdemeanor.[250] In the 2012 Massachusetts House of Representatives elections, Republican candidate Enrico "Jack" Villamaino and his wife forged more than 280 voters' names on absentee ballot requests.[100] Also in 2012, Cincinnati, Ohio poll worker Melowese Richardson made national headlines for using her position to vote twice.[259][260] In the 2014 and 2016 Philadelphia elections, former congressman Michael "Ozzie" Myers was found to have bribed election workers to stuff ballot boxes in local races. Myers pled guilty in 2022 and was sentenced to 2+1⁄2 years in prison.[261]
One of the most notable recent cases of fraud occurred in the 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina. The fraud involved a ballot harvesting scheme undertaken by McCrae Dowless, a campaign operative working for Republican congressional candidate Mark Harris in North Carolina's 9th congressional district. Mark Harris initially won the election by 905 votes, but multiple inconsistencies – only 19 percent of ballot requesters were registered Republicans, for example, but 61 percent of absentee voters selected Harris – and credible reports from workers hired by Dowless led to an investigation, refusal by the North Carolina State Board of Elections to certify Harris, a new election (in which Harris did not participate), and the arrest of Dowless and several other Republican party operatives for ballot harvesting and ballot tampering.[262][263][264]
In 2022, Southfield, Michigan poll worker Sherikia Hawkins pled no contest to misconduct after she was accused of covering up a failure to count 193 absentee ballots in 2018.[265][266] In 2024, Kim Phuong Taylor, wife of Republican Iowa congressional candidate Jeremy Taylor, was convicted of 52 counts of voter fraud for illegally filling out or submitting voter registrations and absentee ballots in 2020.[267][268] In the 2023–24 Bridgeport, Connecticut mayoral election, a judge ordered the Democratic primary to be re-run after ruling that there was enough evidence of ballot stuffing to throw the results into doubt. According to The New York Times, illegal ballot manipulation is not uncommon in Bridgeport elections, and has included apartment residents being pressured to apply for absentee ballots they were not entitled to.[22] Incumbent mayor Joseph Ganim, who had won the initial primary, also won the do-over primary and the general election.[269]
In October 2024, a Vigilantes Inc. documentary premiered on YouTube[270]. Renowned investigative journalist Greg Palast and his investigation team bring focus to voter suppression by “Vigilante” challenges by self-appointed vote-fraud hunters, not government officials, who are targeting well over one million people to challenge and block the counting of their ballots. Most suspiciously, the vast majority of vigilante targets are young voters and minorities. Currently, the Trump-sponsored group True the Vote has gone from 88 vigilantes to over 40,000 “volunteers” in 43 states.[271]
A 2021 study found that Republicans and Democrats often define voter fraud differently, with Republicans more likely to define voter fraud as stemming from individual actions whereas Democrats are more likely to point to voter suppression from unfair policies.[272] A 2016 nationwide poll published in The Washington Post found that 84% of Republicans, 75% of independents and 52% of Democrats believed that a "meaningful amount" of fraud occurred in United States elections.[273] A June 2021 Texas Tribune/University of Texas poll found that 19% of Texas voters thought ineligible people "frequently" cast ballots.[274] A series of Monmouth polls conducted between 2020 and 2023 found that 29%–32% of Americans believed the 2020 United States presidential election was fraudulent.[275] A 2024 nationwide NPR/PBS News/Marist poll found 58% of Americans were concerned about voter fraud in the 2024 United States presidential election, including 88% of Donald Trump supporters and 29% of Kamala Harris supporters.[276] A July 2021 poll published by NPR found that more Americans were concerned about ensuring everyone who wanted to could vote (56%) than ensuring that nobody who is ineligible votes (41%).[277] 90% of Democrats said voting access was more important, and 75% of Republicans said stopping ineligible voting was more important.[277]
Research has shown that voters tend to be highly confident in how elections are conducted in their own communities, though are far less confident in the election processes of other states. A Colorado Secretary of State survey after the 2020 election found that 36% of Colorado voters lacked confidence in the national election results, while only 14% lacked confidence in the Colorado election results.[278] A January 2021 study by the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review found that a majority of Donald Trump supporters, particularly those who were more politically knowledgeable and more closely following election news, believed that electoral fraud was widespread.[279] A 2016 study published in State Politics & Policy Quarterly found that Republicans living in states with voter identification laws were on average more confident in their state's elections than Republicans who did not. However Democrats in states with voter identification laws were less confident in their elections than other Democrats. The study found that this dynamic "was polarized and conditioned by party identification".[280] October 2020 polling by University of Miami professor Joseph Uscinski found that 70% of Republicans believed the 2020 presidential election would be rigged with mail-in ballots, but nearly the same number of Democrats believed the election would be rigged by their mail-in ballots not being delivered.[281]
According to Politico, many figures in the 2004 vote-fraud conspiracy movement, which claimed that the 2004 United States presidential election had been stolen from Democrat John Kerry, later believed the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump, despite the two being ideological opposites.[281] Flawed research is one factor that can widen a gap in perception that significant voter fraud has occurred between supporters of the candidate that lost an election and the supporters of a candidate that won.[282] Politicians are able to significantly influence citizens who support them on election policy issues,[283] as Donald Trump did in weakening trust in the American electoral system.[284] Matthew D. Taylor points to a study that shows 82% of Republican prophecy believers thought the election was stolen, compared to 40% of Republican non-prophecy believers as evidence that the New Apostolic Reformation and similar groups led by self-described Prophets have been especially influential in convincing their followers that the election was stolen.[285] He argues that many prophets in the movement preached that Trump was anointed by God and won the election before the votes had been counted helps to explain why members of charismatic Christian groups were also overrepresented at the Capitol on January 6.[285]
False claims of electoral fraud have occurred numerous times in United States history, often with the intention of voter suppression. Exaggerated claims of noncitizen voter fraud date back to the 1800s and usually spike after periods of higher nonwhite immigration.[142] According to Harvard professor Alexander Keyssar, voter fraud allegations in the 19th century were usually made by conservative Protestants against newly arrived immigrants; and while there was more to justify fraud claims back then, they were often exaggerated and used to justify restrictive voting laws.[12] In 1807, New Jersey ended the rights of women to vote with the excuse that men were supposedly dressing as women and voting twice. In 1959, Washington Parish, Louisiana purged 85% of the parish's African American voters despite claiming they were only removing illegal names.[286]
Prominent Republicans such as presidential nominee Bob Dole in 1996, or Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie and George W. Bush campaign manager Marc Racicot in 2004, made unsubstantiated claims that voter fraud was occurring in favor of their opponents.[12] Fraud was notably alleged by losing candidates in the closely decided 2004 Washington gubernatorial election and 2008 United States Senate election in Minnesota but nothing that would account for either margin of victory was proven in court.[287][288][289] According to columnist Cathy Young, politicians of both parties have made "ill-advised, and sometimes entirely spurious" statements questioning the legitimacy of United States elections – notable Democratic examples include multiple prominent figures after the 2000 United States presidential election and Stacey Abrams in 2018[undue weight? – discuss] – though she noted that Republican election denialism after 2020 was "in a vastly different league".[290]
After the 2004 presidential election, many blogs published false rumors claiming to show evidence that voter fraud had prevented Democrat John Kerry from winning.[291][281] Unfounded conspiracy theories about the election were circulated and promoted.[281] Proponents argued the election was stolen, arguing that votes were switched from Democratic to Republican, that "phantom voters" voted in Ohio, that exit polls that favored Kerry were "more accurate" than the actual result,[292] and that voting machines were rigged to favor Republican George W. Bush.[293] As a result of this, some Democratic members of Congress asked for investigations into the vote count.[292] A 2005 report by Democratic House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers titled What Went Wrong in Ohio claimed that "numerous serious election irregularities" and voter suppression by Republicans had caused Bush to win the state.[206][294] While some courts before the election found that certain restrictive voting policies of Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell were illegal,[295] claims of voter and machine fraud swaying the election have not achieved mainstream acceptance,[281] and several have been refuted.[296]
President Donald Trump continued to claim without evidence that between 3 and 5 million people cost him the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by voting illegally.[297][298][299][300][301]
On May 11, 2017, Trump signed an executive order to establish a commission to conduct an investigation into voter fraud, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach as vice chair.[302] Kobach and the commission failed to provide evidence for claims of voter fraud by Trump and others on the commission.[303] Trump's creation of the commission was criticized by voting rights advocates, scholars and experts, and newspaper editorial boards as a pretext for, and prelude to, voter suppression.[304][305][306][307][303] Matt Dunlap, a Democrat on the commission, called it a sham designed to gin up anti-immigrant sentiment.[14] In January 2018, Trump abruptly disbanded the commission,[308] which met only twice.[309] The commission found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the United States.[308][309] Richard Hasen said the commission was supposed to give Trump cover to pass a national documentary proof of citizenship law.[167]
During the 2020 presidential campaign, Trump indicated in Twitter posts, interviews and speeches that he might refuse to recognize the outcome of the election if he were defeated; Trump falsely suggested that the election would be rigged against him.[310][311][312] Trump repeatedly claimed that "the only way" he could lose would be if the election was "rigged" and repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power after the election.[313][314] Trump also attacked mail-in voting throughout the campaign, falsely claiming that the practice contained high rates of fraud.[315][316][317] In September 2020, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, a Trump appointee, testified under oath that the FBI has "not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise."[318]
In the lead-up to the election, citing fraud concerns, Republicans filed lawsuits in several states seeking to limit the use of mail-in voting,[319] and prepared to challenge individual mail-in ballots.[320] Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg criticized his party for this in a November 1, 2020, Washington Post op-ed, writing that over the last four decades, "Republicans found only isolated instances of fraud", and that "Proof of systematic fraud has become the Loch Ness Monster of the Republican Party. People have spent a lot of time looking for it, but it doesn't exist".[20]
After most of the major news organizations declared Biden the President-elect on November 7,[322][323][324][325] Trump refused to accept his loss, declaring "this election is far from over" and alleging election fraud without providing evidence.[326] Multiple lawsuits alleging electoral fraud were filed by the Trump campaign, all of which were dismissed as having no merit.[327][328] Trump's claims of fraud during the 2020 election were also debunked by his own officials.[329] Republican officials questioned the legitimacy of the election and aired conspiracy theories regarding various types of alleged fraud.[330][331] In early 2021 along with other elections laws though to give Republicans an advantage, Trump loyalists in a number of states initiated a push to make voting laws more restrictive.[332]
In December 2021, the Associated Press released a detailed fact-check which found fewer than 475 instances of voter fraud out of an estimated 25 million votes cast in the six battleground states.[333] They involved both Democrats and Republicans and were almost always caught before the votes were counted.[334][335][336][337] While some seemed intentional, others involved clerical error or voter confusion.[334] In October 2024, prosecutors in Trump's DOJ election subversion case argued that they would prove at trial that Trump invented statistics "from whole cloth".[338]
Trump's claims of fraud have continued into the 2024 presidential campaign, with experts and election officials have voiced concern about rising threats and violence inspired by Trump's election denialism since 2020.[329][339] Richard Hasen wrote that in January 2024 that, "Trump has been able to manufacture doubt out of absolutely nothing; fraud claims untethered to reality still captivate millions of people looking for an excuse as to why their adored candidate may have lost."[340] Walter Olson of the Cato Institute said that Trump's agitations about election security and noncitizen voting are due to "his need to keep up the illusion that he somehow won".[341]
In the 2024 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, Trump repeated false claims that from other states voted in the primary.[342] According to The New York Times, Trump escalated use of "rigged election" and "election interference" statements in advance of the 2024 election compared to the previous two elections. The statements were described as part of a "heads I win; tails you cheated" rhetorical strategy.[321] The escalating rhetoric worries experts concerned about another attempt to overturn the results of the election, as well as threats and violence.[134][343] An August 2024 poll found that 17% of Americans are not prepared to accept the outcome of the 2024 election and that two-thirds of Americans do not believe Trump is prepared to accept the outcome.[344] 34% of survey respondents lack confidence that votes will be tallied correctly.[344] Matt Gertz of Media Matters argues that this level of support is due to the bifurcated media environment, which makes his plans to overturn an election possible.[134] The Economist wrote that if he were to lose, Trump was "all but certain" to challenge the outcome again.[345] Chris LaCivita, an adviser to Trump, said in July, "It's not over on Election Day, it's over on Inauguration Day."[345]
In 2024, the Republican National Committee (RNC) launched a swing state initiative to mobilize thousands of poll watchers, poll workers and attorneys to observe the election process. The RNC also created hotlines for poll watchers to report perceived problems and escalate issues through legal action.[346] Critics have argued that these efforts could undermine trust in elections and are targeted on polling places where more Democrats cast their ballots.[347] The 2024 election also saw an increase in volunteers recruited by nonpartisan voter advocacy groups to assist poll workers and voters.[347] The Democracy Defense Project launched a bipartisan effort to counter narratives of voter fraud in swing states and Ohio.[348] Misinformation and false claims about noncitizen voting have become the main focus of election denialism ahead of the 2024 election, which some experts say have been used to intimidate and suppress voters while laying the groundwork to try and overturn the election again should Trump lose.[349]
Claims of vote flipping or vote switching by voting touch screens have consistently been refuted by election experts. They have resurfaced in every national election since 2004, reaching a peak in the 2020 election, after which the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a statement, "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."[350] With the widespread adoption of direct recording electronic (DRE) touch screen voting technology in the early 2000s, largely funded by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, claims began to surface that votes for one candidate were being "flipped" to the opposing candidate. As the 2004 general election was the first national election since HAVA, it was the first to see this allegation as some Democratic voters in Florida claimed the touch screen changed their vote for John Kerry to a vote for George W. Bush.[351]
CBS News election law contributor David Becker stated that voter error is the cause of every incident he has encountered of an allegedly "flipped" vote.[352] As of November 5, 2024, incidents in the 2024 election have tended to support this assertion. In Georgia, a single voter in Whitfield County selected the wrong candidate during early voting, spotted the error on the paper ballot and corrected her mistake—a human error that quickly became a conspiracy theory after an anonymous Facebook post was shared by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene.[352][353] After one voter in Tarrant County, Texas claimed his vote for president had been switched by the machine, county commissioner Alisa Simmons said, "There is zero evidence that that has occurred," suggesting voter error was responsible.[354] On the last day of early voting in Texas, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick tweeted that "There have been less than ten allegations of vote flipping out of nearly 7 million votes cast across the state. There has not been a single confirmation that it actually happened."[355]
Sciences Po academic Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy suggests that right-wing politicians and organizations promote the narrative of electoral fraud out of political or financial self-interest that taps into political paranoia that he traces to McCarthyism, the Great Replacement, and the deep state.[356][357] Jon Schwarz of The Intercept lists examples of false voter fraud claims from Republicans going back decades.[358] Mindy Romero of the University of South Carolina said the concern of noncitizens voting is fueled by misinformation, fear and demonization of immigrants.[359] Voter fraud expert Lorraine Minnite has described Republicans as seizing on misunderstandings of complicated processes around voter roll maintenance to suggest that noncitizens were voting.[116] Some claims of voter fraud are described as a dog whistle.[360][361][362][363][364]
By 2023, Meta, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) rolled back efforts to label or remove lies about election fraud.[365][366] As of September 2024, the Heritage Foundation, among other groups, were spreading election misinformation about noncitizen voting, with one debunked video getting over 56 million views on X.[367] Since the 2020 election, over $590 million from mostly anonymous donors went to groups in the Only Citizens Vote Coalition which promotes election misinformation. The groups involved also support other projects like Project 2025 and many are overseen by major players who tried to overturn the 2020 election.[368]
Russian operatives have promoted false claims of voter fraud hoping to "further sow doubt in election integrity"[369] in the United States and democracies around the world.[370] According to a U.S. intelligence report in September 2020, Russian intelligence operatives were trying to amplify concerns of United States election integrity such as the reliability of mail-in voting.[371] According to The New York Times, disinformation efforts by autocratic countries led by Russia and China "push narratives undermining democratic governance" designed to "accelerate the recent rise in authoritarian-minded leaders".[365] Russia's Internet Research Agency focused voter fraud memes at right-wing groups, with its most-shared Facebook post of the 2016 United States elections reading "Like if you think only US citizens should be allowed vote" while showing a photo of Latinos waiting in line.[372]
In some cases, the spreading of fraud claims is done to lay the groundwork for overturning election results.[373][374][375] The 2020 presidential election saw a number of failed attempts to overturn the results based on unfounded claims of voter fraud.[376][377] The 2024 presidential election has seen similar claims, which some experts have warned could be seeds planted in case Trump loses and tries to overturn the result.[378][379][134] The New York Times observed that Georgia was the most likely state for this to occur due to recent changes in election laws.[379][345]
False claims of fraud have lowered overall levels of trust in elections.[380] According to The New York Times, "baseless claims of electoral fraud have battered trust in democracy".[365] For the 2024 elections, Rick Hasen was most worried about election denialism which can lead to violence and erode trust in democracy.[381] A nationwide study conducted after the 2018 United States elections and published in the Journal of Experimental Political Science found that exposure to claims of voter fraud reduces confidence in electoral integrity, though does not reduce support for democracy itself. Corrective messages from mainstream sources did not measurably reduce this distrust.[382]
The combination of false claims about electoral fraud and violent, warlike rhetoric has been noted to raise the likelihood of election workers receiving threats, as well as political violence such as the unprecedented January 6 attacks.[383][342][376][384] Some election experts worry that Trump's voters would resort to violence again in 2024 if he lost the election.[385][121] In September, Trump threatened to jail people "involved in unscrupulous behavior" in the 2024 election, prompting widespread condemnation from election officials that it could provoke violence, including against election workers.[386][339]
A 2024 Brennan Center survey found 4 in 10 election workers had experienced threats, harassment or abuse.[373] In some cases where poll workers were intimidated by poll watchers in 2020,[347] they were given additional protections for subsequent elections, including the electronic screening of poll watchers and a greater distance from them,[347] panic buttons,[345] bulletproof glass and now get extensive training on de-escalation and active shooter scenarios.[387] Election offices between September 2023 and 2024 have also received white powder in envelopes and one in Ohio had its window shot.[387] The mailroom in Durham, North Carolina has been retrofitted with a separate exhaust to protect against hazardous substances sent in the mail.[387] Election officials in Georgia, Maine, Michigan and Missouri have also been swatted at their homes with bogus 911 calls.[387] Jena Griswold said she had received more than 1,000 serious threats in the past year, which she credits to the rhetoric of former president Trump.[388] The Department of Homeland Security issued warnings between July and September about right-wing election deniers possibly trying to bomb ballot drop boxes and commit other acts of terrorism, citing baseless 'perceptions of voter fraud' as the primary trigger they worry about with regard to motivations to commit violence by a lone wolf.[389]
While voter intimidation has been relatively rare, it has increased since 2020 with the false claims of fraud and concerted efforts to recruit poll watchers.[390] In 2020, Donald Trump encouraged his supporters to go to the polls and "watch very carefully".[18] CNBC cited voter intimidation as a bigger concern for analysts than voter fraud ahead of the 2020 elections.[18] According to The Washington Post, voting rights advocates worry that the rhetoric about noncitizen voting could have a 'chilling effect' on Latino citizens and naturalized immigrants exercising their right to vote.[391] In Arizona in 2022, there were instances of people surveilling drop boxes and taking photos of people's license plates.[390] Some bills passed in Republican states also increase the likelihood of voter intimidation and election interference at polling stations.[392]
Concerns about voter fraud, despite the fact that it is essentially nonexistent, are used as a main justification for voter suppression bills in the 21st century.[392] The bills passed by Republicans in state legislatures restrict voting access more for minorities, young people, and other Democratic-leaning constituencies. For example, sponsors of the bills often cite the false claim that Democrats had stolen the 2020 election through voter fraud.[392] Democrats and voting rights advocates argue that the Republican rhetoric around illegal voting is not a sincere effort to address voter fraud, but is designed to increase turnout of the Republican base (and suppress the turnout of Latino voters).[391] Rick Hasen believes that fraud messaging is aimed at the Republican base, noting how the rhetoric in court is more circumspect due to court rules.[393]
States each have different laws and methods to address electoral fraud. Some methods of preventing voter fraud have caused controversy due to their potential to disproportionately impact legal voters and/or certain demographic groups.[394] A 2018 report released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommended that states undergo regular election audits, cross-check voter registrations nationwide for duplicates, and adopt systems for voters to verify receipt and delivery of mail ballots. The report called for investments to improve election technology and administration; including technology to prevent coercion or vote buying with mail ballots, and identity verification technology at the polls such as biometric markers. It also recommended the use of paper ballots and a ban on internet voting.[395]
In the United States, voter ID laws (laws requiring identification to vote) have been enacted in 36 states as of 2024 with the stated aim of preventing voter impersonation.[396] They have mostly been introduced by Republican legislators since 2011.[397][57][61] Specific forms of ID required vary between states, with some requiring photo identification.[398] Some laws have been struck down in court as an undue burden.[396] Voter ID requirements are generally popular among Americans, though they are also a divisive issue.[399][400] Critics of voter ID laws have argued that they depress turnout by lawful voters under the pretense of addressing voter impersonation, which is quite rare.[396][61] Americans who have lower incomes, are younger or transgender are less likely to have an updated ID.[396][401]
The process of verifying the citizenship of voters varies by state.[126][129] It is best practice for states to check registrations against DMV or Social Security files to check for noncitizens.[107] Some methods states have tried have been discontinued due to errors or legal fights. As of 2020, some states like Kansas do not independently verify proof of citizenship.[126][needs update]
According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections in 2017, DMV data indicating noncitizenship is just the first step in determining someone's citizenship status because, "voters who appear to be non-citizens based on DMV data were confirmed to be U.S. citizens in the SAVE database 97.6 percent of the time."[402] If the status was then also listed as noncitizen in the Systematic Alien Verifications for Entitlements database, the Board asked for more proof in mailings and interviews since 3/4 of those who had been able to provide proof of citizenship, remained listed in the SAVE database as noncitizens.[402]
Georgia compares voter rolls to Social Security Administration and its Department of Driver Services, while Colorado uses the SAVE database as-needed.[403] In Georgia, if someone's citizenship cannot be verified who registers to vote, they are put into a 'pending citizenship' status and prevented from registering.[107] Texas requires court clerks to notify the secretary of state of those disqualified from jury duty for being noncitizens.[129]
In Nevada, the state DMV does not pass along citizenship information to counties when they make voter registration checks, meaning that noncitizen registration is technically possible if applicants lie on their registration form.[404] According to the Bipartisan Policy Center as of July 2024, access to federal citizenship data is "difficult, costly, and burdensome", and state election officials have "long struggled" to obtain it. Between January 2023 and July 2024, nine states instituted laws to solidify citizenship verification for voting and voter registration; mostly by improving data collaboration with state resources and federal databases.[405]
Proof of citizenship laws require people who vote or register to vote to present documentary proof of citizenship. Proponents have argued that they are necessary to prevent illegal noncitizen voting, while critics have said that noncitizen voting essentially does not occur and that the laws would disenfranchise large percentages of eligible voters who lack easy access to such documents, such as college students, tribal voters, or low-income voters.[408][409][410] A June 2024 Brennan Center study estimates that 21.3 million citizens (9% of voters) do not have easy access to documentary proof of citizenship, and that 3.8 million citizens lack access to any form, often because documents were lost, damaged or stolen.[410][411][412][413][414][415][416]
The legality of proof of citizenship laws has been disputed. In the 2013 Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's proof of citizenship law violated the 1993 National Voter Registration Act for federal elections.[417] In August 2024, in Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota the Supreme Court allowed Arizona to enforce a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote using the state's registration forms (federal forms do not require documentation), pending appeal.[418][419] In July 2024, the United States House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would mandate that Americans show documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote and make it easier to sue election workers who register a noncitizen.[420][421] The bill died after not being considered by the Senate.[422] The Bipartisan Policy Center argued there are better ways to ensure noncitizens do not vote, such as better data sharing between state departments, such as data provided to a DMV when attaining a REAL ID.[405]
In the 2018 Fish v. Kobach case, U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson ruled that Kansas' proof of citizenship law was unconstitutional, in part because the state did not demonstrate that any meaningful illegal noncitizen voting occurred and that 31,089 citizens without the right documentation had their voter registration cancelled or suspended.[423][424][425][426] In a 2023 case in Arizona, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton struck down the documentary proof of citizenship requirement along similar lines but upheld some provisions, citing as credible estimates of 2022 noncitizen voting rates by Jesse Richman, which other scholars have disputed.[427][428]
Signature verification is carried out by a majority of states in order to prevent forged paper ballots. According to the Election Administration and Voting Survey, 27.5% of rejected absentee ballots in 2016,[429] and 15.8%, of rejected mail-in ballots in 2018,[430] were due to signature mismatches. Tossing ballots due to signature mismatches can depend on the method of signature verification used.[431]
As of 2024, 31 states conduct signature verification on returned absentee or mail-in ballots. Nine states do not conduct signature verification, but require the signature of either a witness, two witnesses, or a notary. Ten states and Washington, D.C., neither conduct signature verification nor require a witness signature.[432] Mississippi is the only state to both conduct signature verification and require a witness signature (in this case, a notary).[432] Four states (Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and Ohio) additionally require either a copy of the voter's ID or a voter identification number.[432]
In 2024, in Mesa County, Colorado, signature verification successfully detected around a dozen mail ballots that were stolen and fraudulently submitted on behalf of other voters. Three of the ballots had been wrongly accepted and counted after they were flagged by the automated system, but subsequently reviewed and approved by an election judge.[102]
Experts have stated that disenfranchisement caused by mail-in ballots being discarded on technicalities, including non-matching or missing signatures, is a more pervasive problem than mail-in ballot fraud.[433][434] Researchers at Protect Democracy found that "an explosion of misinformation" about how much cheating occurs among voters using mail-in ballots caused a spike in rejected signatures during the 2021 Georgia Senate runoffs compared to the 2020 presidential election.[374]
Because it is standard procedure for ballots cast in-person to not contain identifying information about the voter, if an illegal in-person ballot is cast, it can be impossible to isolate it and prevent it from counting.[435] Some states mark ballots with identifying numbers in certain circumstances. For example, an election worker in Maine will write a number on a ballot only if it is challenged,[436] and election workers in North Carolina write identifying numbers on early in-person and mail-in ballots, which allows ballots to be retrieved and not counted if necessary.[437]
As of 2024, 48 states conduct some type of post-election audit, which check if the equipment and procedures used to count votes worked properly, and detect discrepancies using a hand count of paper records. The two exceptions are Alabama and New Hampshire, both of which nonetheless piloted different audit types in 2022. The type and scope of audit significantly varies between states.[438]
Voter roll management seeks to balance sometimes competing interests of ensuring accurate voter rolls, protecting voter privacy and not disenfranchising or creating undue burdens on voters.[119]
Voter caging is the process of challenging the voter registration status of someone who is registered to vote. It often involves sending that person a postcard to the address on file and removing the voter if they do not respond within a certain time period.[439] The practice can be controversial with some civil rights groups successfully suing some states that target voters of a particular political party or race in such a way as to make it meaningfully impact election outcomes and voter's rights.[440]
The Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program was a database established in 2005 and run by Kansas that compared voting records across multiple states to prevent double voting. At least 28 states opted into the program, but academics and several states found that it returned high rates of false positives that would disenfranchise legal voters. Some states left as a result.[441] In 2017, the program was put on hold after the Department of Homeland Security discovered security vulnerabilities. In 2019, the program was indefinitely suspended as part of a settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[442] Earlier in 2012, the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) was established with a goal of improving the accuracy of voter rolls through comparisons between states.[443] At its peak, 33 states and the District of Columbia were members.[444] Beginning in 2022, nine Republican-led states left ERIC. States cited complaints about governance issues, including that ERIC mailed newly eligible voters who had not yet registered ahead of federal elections, and that it had become subject to alleged partisan influence.[445][446] ERIC was the subject of repeated false claims from allies of Donald Trump that it was a voter registration vehicle for Democrats. Several states that left ERIC subsequently created their own partnerships.[443][445][446]
In most states, a prosecutor must prove that an individual committed voter fraud intentionally or knowingly. In some states, however, any mistake on the part of a voter that leads to voting illegally can be grounds for prosecution.[447] An election crime becomes a federal crime if the ballot includes one or more federal candidates, an election official is involved, election workers are threatened, or the crime relates to fraudulent voter registration or noncitizen voting. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines voter or ballot fraud as one of three broad categories of federal election crimes; the other two being campaign finance violations and civil rights violations, such as voter intimidation or suppression.[5]
According to The New York Times, prosecutions of voter fraud can lead to significantly varied outcomes depending on socioeconomic status and the state in which someone is being tried. Most violations "draw wrist-slaps", while some high-profile prosecutions have produced multiple-year jail terms.[177] Often, prosecutions net people who did not realize they were breaking the law.[177] Lorraine Minnite has argued that almost all cases of illegal voting are due to misunderstandings or administrative error,[23] which does not constitute fraud in states where intent is required.[448] Prosecutions are exceedingly rare; as of 2022, an average of one and a half people per state per year were charged with voter fraud.[177] Cases of voter fraud can be difficult to prove or prosecute,[449][450][451] depending on the type of fraud alleged.[55][56][452] According to Bob Hall, former director of Democracy North Carolina, political will is especially required to investigate more complicated electoral fraud schemes, and prosecutors are more inclined to pursue easier cases such as when someone illegally votes while on probation.[453]
Between 1970 and 2005, fewer than 40 people were convicted for illegal voting in Florida, and only two were sent to prison. The Tampa Bay Times attributed this to fraud largely being ignored by prosecutors "unless an election is questioned, someone complains or a voter is investigated on other charges".[454] Wisconsin Watch evaluated voter fraud cases from 2012-2022 and found about 0.0006% of votes cast were challenged by a district attorney, with a voter's probation status as the most common reason.[455] A 2022 investigation by KING-TV found that the likelihood of being charged for voter fraud in Washington state varied depending on the county; King County, with a voting population of 1.3 million, had charged 9 cases of voter fraud since 2007, while the much smaller Lewis County had charged 8 (at least 3 of which were dismissed).[456] King County tended to write warning letters for isolated cases, such as a partner who cast the ballot of a recently deceased spouse, and focus prosecutions on cases where a repeat offense was more likely, such as canvassing fraud.[456] The United States Department of Justice publishes Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, a handbook for district election officers. The 2017 edition warns against launching public investigations, without approval granted for extraordinary cases, into alleged fraud before an election is over so as not to tip the election with the publicity generated by an unfinished investigation.[457][458]
In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, many courts ruled against plaintiffs in voter fraud lawsuits on the basis that they, as voters, lacked standing. According to University of Memphis law professor Steven Mulroy, who was critical of some court dismissals based on standing, election cases raise unique standing challenges as the asserted harms are often split between many people.[459] A novel type of vote dilution claim based on fraud has been employed by Republicans since 2020, and is based on the idea that election rules that make it too easy to cast fraudulent votes can dilute the strength of valid ones.[460] Claims of this nature were not successful in 2020 though have since received some success in federal district courts.[461]
...they typically claim to be targeting voter fraud of one or another of four kinds: "in-person voter fraud, noncitizen voting, double voting, and voter registration rolls that are 'bloated' and contain ineligible voters who should be removed.
As with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare. However, even many scholars who argue that fraud is generally rare agree that fraud with VBM voting seems to be more frequent than with in-person voting.
Documented cases of voter fraud, including those related to voting by mail, are rare. But while uncommon, fraud seems to occur more often with mailed-in votes than with in-person voting, according to the MIT Election Data & Science Lab.
In the last half-century, there are only scattered examples of where election fraud appeared to have made a difference in the outcome. They often take place in races that attract relatively few voters and thus the impact of fraud could be greater.
Experts say election fraud is vanishingly rare in the United States...Like other forms of voter fraud, double voting appears to be exceptionally rare, according to multiple studies.
This article aims to provide information and context on how voter fraud in the U.S. is not a 'widespread' issue, as some online commentators claim, but made exceedingly rare by existing safeguards.
Voter fraud is exceptionally rare, and allegations that widespread numbers of undocumented immigrants are voting have been repeatedly discredited.
While most experts agree voter fraud on a national scale is unlikely, a bigger concern for the 2020 elections, according to analysts, is voter intimidation.
Most experts say there is almost no evidence of systemic voter fraud in the United States, even in states where most people vote by mail.
Proof of systematic fraud has become the Loch Ness Monster of the Republican Party. People have spent a lot of time looking for it, but it doesn't exist
...though experts say election fraud is rare in the United States and often accidental when it occurs.
Late in the trial, the ACLU presented Lorraine Minnite, a professor at Rutgers who has written extensively about voter fraud, as a rebuttal witness. Her book, 'The Myth of Voter Fraud,' concluded that almost all instances of illegal votes can be chalked up to misunderstandings and administrative error.
As many experts have said for years, Adams said instances of voter fraud are rare and more likely to be found in small, local races than in a statewide or national election.
What the researchers did find, however, was that illegal voting was most prevalent in local races, where a small number of votes could alter the outcome. In other words, in the few instances where illegal voting happened, it was not in a presidential election – the contest that has been the focus of the attacks on mail voting by Trump's base.
In the past three years, six legal cases have laid out, step by step, ways that elections can be stolen. All involved local races, for positions such as magistrate, county clerk, mayor and state representative.
Extant findings show that voter fraud is extremely rare and difficult to prove in the United States.
They cite peer-reviewed studies that have shown that "voter fraud is extremely rare and difficult to prove," yet a portion of the public still holds fast to the notion Trump is pushing that voter fraud is rampant in American elections.
However, voter fraud is difficult to prove and, according to the available evidence and academic studies, exceedingly rare.
Stretton also said voter fraud is extremely rare, and difficult to prove. "Because oftentimes there is no paper trail, and there really isn't that much election fraud," he said.
Voter fraud may be difficult to detect when it is done well (Ahlquist, Mayer, and Jackman 2014; Christensen and Schultz 2013) ... Removing the registration with an earlier registration date when two share the same name and birthdate – could impede approximately 300 legitimate votes for each double vote prevented...We estimate that at most only 1 in 4,000 votes cast in 2012 were double votes, with measurement error in turnout records possibly explaining a significant portion, if not all, of this.
While election chicanery can be hard to prove, instances of impersonating a dead person are easier to catch, Hall says.
Elections experts say that absentee or mail voting is potentially more subject to instances of fraud than in-person voting, but that states with a history of all-mail voting have a minuscule number of cases. Wide-scale cheating that could swing a close race would be easy to detect.
Across the board, election security experts have pointed out just how difficult it would be to carry out election fraud on a scale large enough to actually affect the outcome.
There is scattered evidence of noncitizens voting in federal elections – sometime by mistake (such as erroneously thinking they were eligible while getting a driver's license) but also with nefarious intent ... Given the paucity of evidence of noncitizen voting, many election researchers have long said that there was little to support the idea that noncitizen voting had ever affected the outcome of a major election. But that does not necessarily prove that the phenomenon does not happen.
Heritage has said the database is just a sampling of fraud cases and is not comprehensive.
However, those cases make up such a small fraction of the ballots cast that experts consider the problem to be 'virtually nonexistent.'
Although voter ID's policy proponents often argue that the measure is necessary to combat voter fraud at the polls, such fraud is so rare that it is virtually nonexistent.
Nationwide, voter fraud is also very rare. A law professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles tracks claims of voter fraud. Of the more than 1 billion votes studied, he found only 31 credible cases of fraud. Despite the minimal risk, several other states have adopted stricter voting laws in recent years. A federal appeals court also struck down a voter ID requirement in Texas last month.
The state said the law was needed to combat voter fraud. But cases of impersonation at the polls are very rare.
Best we can tell, in-person voter fraud--the kind targeted by the ID law--remains extremely rare, which makes this claim incorrect and ridiculous.
But is there? Many election experts say the kind of voter fraud Trump is talking about – voter impersonation – is extremely rare, and not enough to tip even a close presidential election. And there is plenty of research to back that up.
The evidence that does exist, however, shows that voter fraud is extremely rare and that three million undocumented immigrants didn't vote in the 2016 election.
Most experts say voter fraud is extremely rare in the U.S., with one study by a Loyola Law School professor finding just 31 known cases of impersonation fraud out of 1 billion votes cast in U.S. elections between 2000 and 2014.
But putting rhetoric aside to look at the facts makes clear that fraud by voters at the polls is vanishingly rare, and does not happen on a scale even close to that necessary to "rig" an election.
Perhaps more damning, at least fourteen elections have been invalidated or overturned by a court between 1978-2018 due to absentee ballot fraud while not a single election has been overturned due to voter impersonation fraud.
It's fair to say, however, that impersonation cases can be hard to count in that they are hard to prove – particularly when no photo ID requirement is in place and a voter can cast a ballot simply by stating the name of a registered voter.
Such voter fraud charges are rarely filed in L.A. County and often are hard to prove, but officials said Abutin's repeated pattern of voting using a long-deceased relative's ID raised alarm bells.
Existing studies, relying mainly on documented criminal prosecutions and investigations of apparent irregularities, turn up very little evidence of fraud. Critics argue that this is unsurprising because casting fraudulent votes is easy and largely undetectable without strict photo ID requirements.
After examining approximately 2.1 million votes cast during the 2006 general election in Georgia, we find no evidence that election fraud was committed under the auspices of deceased registrants.
We find no evidence of widespread voter impersonation, even in the states most contested in the presidential or statewide campaigns.
Ahlquist, Mayer and Jackman's findings are unequivocal – "the notion that voter impersonation is a widespread behavior is totally contradicted by these data."
Attorneys general in those states successfully prosecuted 38 cases, though other cases may have been litigated at the county level ... None of the cases prosecuted was for voter impersonation.
Republicans in the last election heavily criticised mail-in voting as being ripe with fraud. Numerous national and state-level studies have shown that although there have been isolated cases, electoral fraud is very rare.
While the instances of voter fraud via mail-in ballots are more common than in-person voting fraud, experts have told us the number of known cases is relatively small.
Overall, election-related fraud is 'very, very rare,' says Professor Morley. Yet experts generally agree that fraud related to mail-in voting is more frequent than in-person voting abuses.
While election experts say fraud in mail balloting is slightly more common than in in-person voting, NPR reports that it's still such a minuscule amount it's not statistically meaningful.
Despite widespread claims of mail-in and absentee ballot fraud, the reality is it's exceedingly rare.
Numerous academic studies have shown that cases of voter fraud are extremely rare, although they do occur, and that fraud in mail voting seems to occur more often than with in-person voting.
Voter fraud related to ballots sent by mail or placed in drop boxes is extremely rare, writes the Brennan Center for Justice – 'so rare that multiple analyses have shown that is more likely that someone will be struck by lightning that than commit mail ballot fraud.''Mail-in ballots have been around for a long time and are a safe and secure way to vote "used by voters of all political parties,' says the Bipartisan Policy Center.
His comments came after a bipartisan group of election officials raised concerns about the delivery of mail-in ballots and as Trump resurrects debunked false claims about supposed fraud with mail-in voting. Voter fraud is extremely rare in US elections, according to studies from liberal and conservative groups.
About 58% of voter fraud cases since 2005 [in Texas] involve mail-in ballot fraud. But the total number of prosecutions are minuscule compared to the tens of millions of votes cast in the last 15 years.
'What makes this inappropriate is that the underlying activity is a fantasy,' said Ben Wittes, a senior fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution
That last point highlights one of the first problems with the practice: the person standing there asking you to hand over your ballot may be someone you have a hard time saying no to, owing to dependence, economic or otherwise.
Most reputable studies have found that in virtually all cases, any vote fraud by noncitizens is infinitesimal.
Republicans who have been vocal about voting by those who are not citizens have demurred when asked for evidence that it's a problem. Last week, during a news conference on his federal legislation to require proof of citizenship during voter registration, House Speaker Mike Johnson couldn't provide examples of the crime happening. 'The answer is that it's unanswerable,' the Louisiana Republican said in response to a question about whether such people were illegally voting. 'We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it's not been something that is easily provable.' Election administration experts say it's not only provable, but it's been demonstrated that the number of noncitizens voting in federal elections is infinitesimal.
Despite Johnson's focus on this topic, it is extremely rare, according to decades of voting data and nonpartisan experts. It's so uncommon that voting experts don't see it as a problem plaguing US elections.
In Georgia, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger found that 1,634 potential noncitizens tried to register to vote between 1997 and 2022, though election officials flagged them and none was registered. Georgia registered millions of other voters during that time.
'And what we know about non-citizen voting is that it's also extremely rare. It does happen occasionally. Sometimes it happens because non-citizens are registered to vote and don't know they're not allowed to vote. There are very few cases of this.'
But experts say the Republican spotlight on the issue glosses over two crucial facts: Noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare, and it is already banned in almost all places, including the ones with ballot measures in November. That hasn't stopped Republicans from making the issue a frequent talking point. The unfounded threat brings together two issues Republicans believe will drive turnout with their base: illegal immigration and election fraud claims. Critics warn that attempts to crack down on noncitizen voting could suppress the votes of Latino voters who fear being wrongly accused of illegally casting ballots. They say they could also lead to database mismatches that push legitimate voters off the rolls.
House Republicans are pushing legislation to crack down on voting by noncitizens, which is allowed in some local elections but illegal – and exceedingly rare – at the federal level...
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration, a proposal Republicans have prioritized as an election-year talking point even as research shows noncitizens illegally registering and casting ballots in federal elections is exceptionally rare.
While the bills echo a favorite claim from Republicans regarding election fraud, several years of research and data suggest that the problem they attempt to solve up to now has been so rare as to be insignificant.
Numerous studies have also confirmed that it almost never happens, but as more conservative voters say immigration is a key issue for them, it's become clearer that election misinformation in 2024 will center on the topic as well.
Voting by noncitizens is rare.
There has never been evidence to support the idea that noncitizens register and vote in anything but microscopic numbers.
To be clear, every bit of research finds that noncitizens don't vote in anything but microscopic numbers.
Cases of noncitizens voting are statistically rare. Some noncitizens accidentally end up on voter rolls when applying for drivers' licenses.
...election denialism continues to be the Republican tack as long as Trump remains the captain, and it could once again have very serious repercussions if he isn't victorious in November.
'The consequences are so severe that really this is not something that anybody would risk,' Sweren-Becker said. 'And that intuition actually bears out in the numbers.'
The answer is: just about no one. Every legitimate study ever done on the question shows that voting by noncitizens in state and federal elections is vanishingly rare.
'The penalties are high, and the payoff is low,' said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law. 'If you aren't a citizen and you vote, and you're caught, you can face deportation and criminal penalties. And your chances of affecting an election outcome are small. It's very unlikely someone would purposely choose to vote as a noncitizen.'
There is no evidence that noncitizens vote in US federal elections in any meaningful numbers, and states typically have safeguards in place to prevent them from doing so.
Unlike other crimes where it can be difficult to sort out the culprit, voter registration and casting a ballot creates the paper trail that is itself the crime. Noncitizens who even register to vote or take another action to falsely claim they are a citizen could face up to five years in prison, and those who cast a ballot could be incarcerated for up to one year.
Many voters demonstrate citizenship status when obtaining certain forms of identification, but state rules vary. Among those with stricter rules: ... Texas: Requires state court clerks to notify the secretary of state of those excused or disqualified from jury duty for not being a U.S. citizen. If those people don't provide proof of citizenship within 30 days of being notified, their voter registration can be canceled. Georgia: May cross-check voters' Social Security numbers against state databases.
While claims of massive illegal voting by noncitizens have routinely been disproved, some noncitizens have ended up on the rolls, usually by accident.
This is the leading conspiracy theory of 2024, and a big part of why it sustains is because non-U.S. citizens do end up on voter rolls sometimes.To be clear, every bit of research finds that noncitizens don't vote in anything but microscopic numbers.
The theory involves two complicated subjects, immigration and voting, but it's actually very simple. There isn't any indication that noncitizens vote in significant numbers in federal elections or that they will in the future. It's already a crime for them to do so. And we know it's not a danger because various states have examined their rolls and found very few noncitizen voters.
The conservative Heritage Foundation think tank put together an election fraud database and found 24 cases involving noncitizens voting between 2003 and 2023.
In the three years Kobach has had the authority, 15 people have been charged with voter fraud. Of the 14 convicted, three have been non-citizens, including one in the process of becoming a naturalized citizen who had not been sworn in. That's three non-citizens over the course of several elections in a state with 1.8 million registered voters.
Exaggerated claims about noncitizens committing voter fraud actually go back to the 1800s. And experts say they usually spike during periods of nonwhite immigration due to fears about how the influx of people will change the country.
With Republican officials around the country like Allen putting a fresh focus on preventing noncitizens from voting – which is already illegal and rare – it's naturalized Americans like Esternita Watkins who will be most affected by such voter roll purges, voting rights advocates and attorneys say.
Most commonly, naturalized citizens are erroneously flagged as noncitizens due to election officials cross checking voter rolls with old data.
The use of immigrant records under the SAVE system to verify voter rolls has been criticized by voting rights and immigration advocates because it's not foolproof.
The initial list of 180,000 names was whittled to 2,625, according to the Florida Department of State. The state then checked a federal database and stated it found 207 noncitizens on the rolls (not necessarily voting but on the rolls). That list was sent to county election supervisors to check and it also turned out to contain errors. An Aug. 1, 2012, state elections document showed only 85 noncitizens were ultimately removed from the rolls out of a total of about 12 million voters at that time.
One independent researcher, James Agresti, published a re-interpretation of a widely discredited 2014 paper to make untenable conclusions about non-citizen voting behavior in 2024. No "new study" concluded that 10 to 27% of noncitizens in the U.S. are registered to vote.
First, the president – and his Senior Advisor Stephen Miller – cited a study by Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two professors at Old Dominion University, which claimed 14 percent of non-citizens are registered to vote. That study has been thoroughly debunked by prominent experts for relying on a sample so small that the findings could be explained by response error. The report's own author said it does not support the president's claim.
Mr. Richman still maintains that some small percentage of noncitizens vote in American elections. But the debate over this study has moved on. It's no longer about whether millions of illegal votes were cast, but whether there's any evidence for noncitizen voting at all. The study's bold claims fell apart because of something called response error: the possibility that people taking a survey don't answer a question correctly – in this case, a question about being American citizens. There is always a tiny amount of response error in surveys. Respondents might not understand the question. Or they might understand it, but mark the wrong answer by mistake, if the survey is self-administered. An interviewer, if there is one, could accidentally record the wrong answer. Such errors usually aren't a problem large enough to change the results of a survey.
Academics pilloried Richman's conclusions. Two hundred political scientists signed an open letter criticizing the study, saying it should 'not be cited or used in any debate over fraudulent voting.' Harvard's Stephen Ansolabehere, who administered the CCES, published his own peer-reviewed paper lambasting Richman's work. Indeed, by the time Trump read Richman's article onstage in 2016, The Washington Post had already appended a note to the op-ed linking to three rebuttals and a peer-reviewed study debunking the research.
Aside from larger databases, administrators may (for example) obtain from court authorities a list of persons who ask to be excused from jury duty on the grounds that they are not citizens. Not infrequently these people turn out to have been fibbing to the court clerk to get out of jury service and are in fact native-born citizens – thus generating a false positive. Other false positive matches can arise because someone omits to check the 'citizen' box on a driver's license application even though they are in fact a citizen, or because databases take a while to catch up after someone becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization. The more people believe elections are rigged, the more they are likely to turn their discontents in a direction other than electoral politics. Some will go the passive route of resignation, withdrawing from civic involvements, making themselves the perfect subjects for strongman rule. Others will turn to militia activity or outright violence.
That's a conclusion that's also been reached by the libertarian Cato Institute, with one of its experts calling the claims one of the 'most frequent and less serious criticisms' relating to migration.
Even the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute has debunked the idea that noncitizens vote in significant numbers.
The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has said that 'noncitizens don't illegally vote in detectable numbers.'
The rate of noncitizen voting is effectively zero, a May report by the libertarian Cato Institute found.
Noncitizen voting is a real, if small, problem: a Congressional investigation found that some noncitizens voted in the close 1996 House race in California between Robert K. Dornan, a Republican, and Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, but not enough to affect the outcome. Unlike impersonation fraud, noncitizen voting cannot be dismissed as a Republican fantasy.
As I indicated in my book, The Voting Wars, non-citizen voting is a real, if relatively small, problem.
In the book, you say there is a small problem in the nation with non-citizen voting. Explain. There is some evidence of non-citizens who are registered to vote. There's much less evidence that these non-citizens are actually voting, but there are occasional cases where it happens.
But Richard Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UC Irvine, calls noncitizen voting "not a phantom problem," as Democrats often describe it. "But the number of noncitizens registered and voting is small....
ERIC is currently the only system that can catch if someone votes in more than one state, which is illegal.
We show that these allegations are inflated by not appropriately accounting for the Birthdate Problem, and discuss the implications of the Birthdate Problem for the debate over double voting and the means to address this perceived fraud...Among these are a handful of substantiated instances of persons who have voted twice in the same election, though these are notable mostly for their rarity.
While critics say the inflated rolls are not ideal, no one is suggesting they have contributed to fraud.
The Ninth Circuit also noted Oregon's "important regulatory interest in preventing fraud and its appearances in the electoral processes,"206 and cited testimony detailing "reports of interviews of various signature gatherers (paid per signature) who had forged signatures on their petitions; purchased signature sheets filled with signatures . . . ; or participated in 'signature parties' in which multiple petition circulators would gather and sign each others' petitions."
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
In contrast to the absence of the press, the alert reader has probably already noticed that Democrats feature prominently in almost all of the instances of voter fraud featured in this chapter. ... the GOP is fully capable of voting hijinks when circumstances permit. ... In many states, particularly in the South and some border states, the GOP has rarely if ever controlled the local and legislative offices necessary to set the rules and manipulate the election process. ... the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic in their partisan predisposition, such as low-income minorities.
Vote fraud was widespread on both sides.
Like Trump, Stephen Grover Cleveland lost reelection amid charges of voter fraud. Unlike the 2020 election, there actually was clear evidence of fraud in some states, especially Indiana.
Since direct election of senators began after the 1913 ratification of the 17th Amendment, only four challengers have persuaded the Senate to overrule the outcome of an election.
Even when fraud was proven, the remedy could be hollow. In the Tenth Congressional District of Pennsylvania in 1918, the Democrat, Patrick McLane, was at first declared the winner, while the Republican, John R. Farr, contested the election. Over nearly two years, a Congressional committee examined the case; they determined in February 1921 that "wholesale fraud" had indeed cheated Farr out of his seat, and, by a 161 to 121 vote on the House floor, McLane was unseated and Farr sworn in to serve out the remainder of his term – six days.
Some historians have attributed John Kennedy's win in Illinois in the 1960 presidential election to vote tampering in the fraud-riddled wards.
But in December 1997, with the district attorney's case involving evidence gleaned from over 300 interviews conducted by 40 investigators and a review of 33,000 documents before it, a grand jury declined to bring a single indictment. This closed the criminal investigation of Hermandad and severely undermined the veracity of Dornan's allegations that hundreds of noncitizens had fraudulently voted in Orange County...the House Committee investigation took a full year and produced, in the end, a disputed finding of fraud that was too insubstantial to convince the Republican-dominated House to reverse Sanchez's victory. On February 12, 1998, the House voted 378-33 to dismiss Dornan's contest.
The last prominent investigation into potential noncitizen voting involved a 1996 Orange County, California, congressional race between Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez. The evidence was highly contested.
A 2018 absentee ballot tampering scandal in North Carolina was notable for being one of the few widespread attempts at election fraud.
Surveys to date reveal that most voters report a good experience at the polls and have a high level of confidence in the way that elections are conducted in their communities. However, they have far less confidence in the processes in other states and nationally.
We find that a majority of Trump voters in our sample – particularly those who were more politically knowledgeable and more closely following election news – falsely believed that election fraud was widespread, and that Trump won the election.
We find that the relationship between photo identification laws and confidence in state elections was polarized and conditioned by party identification in 2014. Democrats in states with strict photo identification laws were less confident in their state's elections. Republicans in states with strict identification laws were more confident than others.
Rather than recede with age, in many cases these 2004 skeptics' concerns only deepened. And today, many of these 2004 figures have found a new cause in the 2020 election, embracing Trump's claims about the results even if they are on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum ... Before long, the mainstream apparatus had moved on.
For example, Trump and allies alleged that 36,000 noncitizens had cast ballots in Arizona, changing the figure to 'a few hundred thousand' five days later, eventually revising it back to 'bare minimum … 40 or 50,000,' then to 32,000 and back up to the original number of 36,000.
More recently, claims about noncitizens' voting have connected to a broader conspiracy theory, started by white supremacist groups, about immigrants arriving to 'replace' U.S. citizens.
In California, the racist myth of immigrant voter fraud goes back at least to 1988, when Republicans in a battle over a state legislative seat hired security guards to police Latino neighborhoods, holding up large placards that said 'Non-citizens Can't Vote!'
Matt Dunlap, the Democratic secretary of state of Maine who served on Trump's commission, said in an interview that he now views the effort as a sham. He accused Republicans of trying to gin up anti-immigration sentiment by falsely claiming that voting by undocumented immigrants is rampant. 'It's a dog whistle, no question about it,' Dunlap said. 'Whenever we talk about illegal immigration, voter fraud, others taking something away from us – of course it's a dog whistle.'
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said poll watching is completely legal in Nevada but poll watchers must sign an affidavit that they agree not to talk to voters. Poll watchers are not supposed to intimidate voters in any way, he said. Ford called Trump's comments at the debate a 'dog whistle to voters for voter intimidation.'
Among the biggest sources of disinformation in elections campaigns are autocratic governments seeking to discredit democracy as a global model of governance...Calls to pre-emptively stop voter fraud – which historically is statistically insignificant – recently trended on such platforms, according to Pyrra, a company that monitors threats and misinformation.The 'prevalence and acceptance of these narratives is only gaining traction,' even directly influencing electoral policy and legislation, Pyrra found in a case study.'These conspiracies are taking root amongst the political elite, who are using these narratives to win public favor while degrading the transparency, checks and balances of the very system they are meant to uphold,' the company's researchers wrote.
The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has said that 'noncitizens don't illegally vote in detectable numbers.'
The Russian tool kit for interference is believed to be extensive, according to CeMAS. In an unspecified European election in 2020, campaigners were allegedly intimidated. And in 2020 and 2021, Russian state media is said to have massively disseminated false allegations of electoral fraud in democratic elections around the world...According to the US intelligence report from October 2023, Russia is ultimately pursuing two goals: to portray democratic elections as untrustworthy, and delegitimize the elected governments that run them.
But the likeliest source of trouble at the moment is Georgia, which embodies Republicans' two-pronged approach: They've set up new hurdles to voting and a process to stall – or even outright avoid – certifying the results if Trump loses.
Using a nationwide survey experiment conducted after the 2018 midterm elections – a time when many prominent Republicans also made unsubstantiated fraud claims – we show that exposure to claims of voter fraud reduces confidence in electoral integrity, though not support for democracy itself. The effects are concentrated among Republicans and Trump approvers. Worryingly, corrective messages from mainstream sources do not measurably reduce the damage these accusations inflict.
While voter intimidation is always illegal and a concern during election season, there are some differences in 2022 from the presidential election in 2020. A lot of the differences stem from the disinformation and false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, Morales-Doyle said.
But experts say the Republican spotlight on the issue glosses over two crucial facts: Noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare, and it is already banned in almost all places, including the ones with ballot measures in November. That hasn't stopped Republicans from making the issue a frequent talking point. The unfounded threat brings together two issues Republicans believe will drive turnout with their base: illegal immigration and election fraud claims. Critics warn that attempts to crack down on noncitizen voting could suppress the votes of Latino voters who fear being wrongly accused of illegally casting ballots. They say they could also lead to database mismatches that push legitimate voters off the rolls.
'It's not happening,' said Chuck Coughlin, a Phoenix-based political strategist who ended his lifelong Republican registration in 2017 and is now an independent. 'It's a MAGA narrative intended to gaslight Republicans about election integrity.'
Since 2011, 15 states – mostly Republican-controlled – have passed laws requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls in order to be able to vote.
Indeed, voter ID laws – which Republicans have pushed for years – are quite popular in general.
Also, due to timing issues and the fact that DMV data is generally updated only when licenses are issued, DMV data alone is not reliable for this purpose either...If SAVE indicates a voter is a non-citizen, NCSBE opens a case file and attempts to contact the voter to determine citizenship status through mailings and interviews. Because of the unreliability of citizenship data, voters who appear to be non-citizens – where both data sources indicate non-citizenship status – are not removed from the rolls, absent independent confirmation that they are not citizens. In fact, approximately three-quarters of those who subsequently provide proof of U.S. citizenship continued to appear as non-citizens in the SAVE database.
Cases of noncitizens voting are statistically rare. Some noncitizens accidentally end up on voter rolls when applying for drivers' licenses.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration, a proposal Republicans have prioritized as an election-year talking point even as research shows noncitizens illegally registering and casting ballots in federal elections is exceptionally rare.
"Unlike voter ID laws, that often have not been shown to have a big effect on turnout, these documentary proof of citizenship laws matter a lot," Hasen wrote. "They stand to literally disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters for no good reason."
Dismissing the testimony by Kobach's witnesses as unpersuasive, Robinson drew what she called 'the more obvious conclusion that there is no iceberg; only an icicle largely created by confusion and administrative error.'...But the judge's opinion and expert interviews reveal that Kobach effectively put the concept of mass voter fraud to the test – and the evidence crumbled.
There is scattered evidence of noncitizens voting in federal elections – sometime by mistake (such as erroneously thinking they were eligible while getting a driver's license) but also with nefarious intent ... Given the paucity of evidence of noncitizen voting, many election researchers have long said that there was little to support the idea that noncitizen voting had ever affected the outcome of a major election. But that does not necessarily prove that the phenomenon does not happen.
'[The CES] is not designed to be a sample of noncitizen adults and therefore it is not fit for the purpose of studying that subset of respondents...'There are much better ways to analyze whether noncitizens register to vote,' Schaffner told Snopes. These methods, some of which Richman used in his recent expert reports, involve looking voter rolls and other state records to identify any individuals who appear to be noncitizens. Studies like these, including the Richman expert reports, 'overwhelmingly resulted in finding very few noncitizens registered to vote,' Schaffner told Snopes.
A more pervasive problem, experts say, is disenfranchisement caused by the proportion of mail-in ballots that are discarded on technicalities
Experts said this is a standard election procedure to maintain secrecy. "An in-person ballot is placed in a tabulator or ballot box, intermingled with other ballots. This is to preserve secrecy, so you can't go into the ballot later and confirm who a particular parson voted for," said David Becker, a former Justice Department voting rights official and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.
Election workers write an identifying number on the ballots of voters who vote by mail or during the in-person early voting period. This is a special number assigned to each ballot and voter. "This number allows the ballot to be retrieved and not counted if necessary due to a voter challenge, such as if the voter dies before Election Day or votes more than once," the State Board of Elections said in a recent press release.
Minnite stopped him. 'The word 'fraud' has meaning, and that meaning is that there's intent behind it. And that's actually what Kansas laws are with respect to illegal voting,'
The Furqan case illustrates that cases of voter fraud are not only rare but hard to prove.
Allegations of voter fraud are not only difficult to prove, they're likely to prompt bipartisan debate.
In some states, enforcement is left to the county or district attorney, and in others enforcement is managed by the state's attorney general. Regardless, voting fraud and voter intimidation are difficult to prove and require resources and time that many local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies do not have.
The El Paso County District Attorney is currently investigating the Sosa cases, but these kinds of cases are difficult to prosecute.
But the political will has to be there, Hall said – especially in complicated cases like the one in the 9th District, where there are many moving pieces, multiple potential offenders and a long history of apparent violations. "Sometimes it's hard to get that smoking gun in some cases," Hall said. "So I think they look at the easier thing – somebody who was on probation and they didn't realize they couldn't vote and they tried to. They pursue that, they prosecute that, they make a big deal out of that."
[A public investigation] runs the obvious risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities. It also runs the significant risk of interjecting the investigation itself as an issue, both in the campaign and in the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.
... Many courts were too quick to rule that plaintiffs lacked standing ... election cases raise unique standing challenges, because the asserted harms are often diffused ... With the exception of candidate plaintiffs ... it is harder in election cases to identify parties that are uniquely and concretely harmed by violations of fair election principles than it is in the normal way we think of standing harms.
In a barrage of lawsuits about the 2020 election, conservative plaintiffs argued that electoral policies that make it easier to vote are unconstitutionally dilutive. Their logic was that (1) these policies enable fraud through their lack of proper safeguards and (2) the resulting fraudulent votes dilute the ballots cast by law-abiding citizens.
In 2020, the Republican Party and the Trump campaign brought a series of lawsuits that advanced a novel type of voting claim, which this Article calls fraudulent vote dilution. This claim asserts that an election rule is unconstitutional because it makes it too easy to cast fraudulent ballots that, when tabulated, will dilute the strength of valid and honest ballots. While these claims were not successful in 2020, in the years since, fraudulent vote dilution theories have gained some traction in federal district courts.