Is voter fraud a problem in the US?

Comprehensive research, government audits, and databases compiled by both progressive and conservative organizations show that voter fraud in the United States is exceedingly rare. While isolated instances of voting irregularities and fraud do occur, multiple studies have concluded that they do not happen on a systemic level or on a scale that could alter the outcome of a major election.

However, the debate surrounding election security and voter fraud remains one of the most prominent and polarized issues in American politics.

What the Data Shows

Numerous independent studies and data collections from various political perspectives have consistently found that actual voter fraud is functionally negligible:

1.The Brennan Center for Justice (Progressive/Non-partisan): The Brennan Center's seminal study, The Truth About Voter Fraud, reviewed several meticulously tracked elections and found voter fraud incident rates between 0.0003% and 0.0025%. The study famously concluded that an American is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit in-person voter impersonation.

2.The Heritage Foundation (Conservative): The Heritage Foundation maintains an "Election Fraud Database" designed to highlight vulnerabilities in the voting system. As of late 2023, the database recorded approximately 1,465 proven cases of election fraud spanning more than 40 years. An independent analysis of this database by the Brookings Institution noted that when these cases are compared against the billions of total votes cast during those decades, the fraud rate is minuscule. For example, in the swing state of Pennsylvania, the database found only 39 cases of voter fraud across 32 elections and 100 million votes cast over a 30-year period (a rate of 0.0000388%).

3.The Associated Press (AP) 2020 Election Review: Following the highly contested 2020 presidential election, the AP conducted an exhaustive review of potential voter fraud in six key battleground states. Out of more than 25 million ballots cast in those states, the AP found fewer than 475 potential cases of voter fraud—a fraction of a percent that was far too small to have impacted the election outcome.

4.MIT Election Data and Science Lab: A 20-year study by MIT found that mail-in ballot fraud—often cited as a major vulnerability—is "exceedingly rare," occurring in approximately 0.00006% of individual mail-in votes nationally.

Common Distinctions: Fraud vs. Administrative Errors

Many public allegations of "voter fraud" are actually the result of administrative errors, clerical mistakes, or voter confusion, rather than intentional deception:

•Double Voting and Deceased Voters: When voter registration lists are matched against other databases, "matches" can turn up dead people or people registered in two states. Meticulous follow-ups by election officials usually find that these are clerical errors (e.g., a junior and senior with the same name living at the same address) or cases where a voter passed away after casting a mail-in ballot.

•Noncitizen Voting: It is a federal crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. While state audits occasionally find noncitizens on voter rolls (often due to clerical errors at DMV offices), investigations show that actual voting by noncitizens is vanishingly rare. For example, a 2024 audit in Oregon found about 1,200 noncitizens mistakenly added to the rolls; the error was fixed, and only 5 had actually cast ballots.

Two Main Viewpoints in the Debate

Because of how the data is interpreted, the political debate around voter fraud is divided into two major competing philosophies:

1. The "Election Integrity" Perspective (Proponents of Stricter Voting Laws)

Proponents of this view—largely comprised of conservative lawmakers and organizations like the Heritage Foundation—argue that even if proven fraud is rare, systemic vulnerabilities still exist. They believe that because voter fraud is inherently difficult to detect after the fact, the true number of cases may be higher than what is prosecuted.

Their argument is that:

•Every fraudulent vote cast effectively disenfranchises a legal voter.

•In close local or state elections, even a handful of fraudulent or irregular votes can alter the outcome.

•Implementing safeguards—such as requiring strict photo ID, ending no-excuse mail-in voting, and frequently purging inactive voters from registration rolls—is necessary to protect the integrity of the vote and restore public confidence in elections.

2. The "Voter Access" Perspective (Opponents of Stricter Voting Laws)

Opponents of stricter laws—largely comprised of progressive lawmakers, civil rights groups, and election administrators—argue that because voter fraud is virtually non-existent, strict measures are "solutions in search of a problem".

Their argument is that:

•Aggressive voting restrictions do not stop fraud (since there is almost none to stop) but instead create barriers for eligible voters.

•Strict ID requirements, reductions in polling locations, and aggressive voter roll purges disproportionately affect low-income, minority, student, and elderly voters who may lack the resources or documentation to easily comply.

•Repeated, unproven allegations of widespread fraud serve to erode public trust in democratic institutions and can be used as a pretext to undermine legitimate election outcomes.

Conclusion

From an empirical standpoint, voter fraud is not a systemic problem in the U.S. election system. Multiple layers of security—including paper ballot trails, pre-election testing, bipartisan observation, and post-election audits—successfully keep fraud to a fraction of a percent. However, the political argument continues, balancing the desire for maximum security (to prevent potential fraud) against the desire for maximum accessibility (to ensure every eligible voter can participate).

Citations (11)

1brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “Comprehensive research, government audits, and databases compiled by both progressive and conservative organizations show that voter fraud in the United States is exceedingly rare.”
2brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “Comprehensive research, government audits, and databases compiled by both progressive and conservative organizations show that voter fraud in the United States is exceedingly rare.”
3usafacts.orgData and toolsquality 0.91
usafacts.org
Backs: “While isolated instances of voting irregularities and fraud do occur, multiple studies have concluded that they do not happen on a systemic level or on a scale that could alter the outcome of a major election.”
4americanbar.orgNonprofits and think tanks
americanbar.org
Backs: “However, the debate surrounding election security and voter fraud remains one of the most prominent and polarized issues in American politics.”
5brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “The Brennan Center for Justice (Progressive/Non-partisan): The Brennan Center's seminal study, The Truth About Voter Fraud, reviewed several meticulously tracked elections and found voter fraud incident rates between 0.0003% and 0.0025%.”
6brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “The study famously concluded that an American is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit in-person voter impersonation.”
7heritage.orgNonprofits and think tanks
heritage.org
Backs: “The Heritage Foundation (Conservative): The Heritage Foundation maintains an "Election Fraud Database" designed to highlight vulnerabilities in the voting system.”
8wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “As of late 2023, the database recorded approximately 1,465 proven cases of election fraud spanning more than 40 years.”
9brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “Many public allegations of "voter fraud" are actually the result of administrative errors, clerical mistakes, or voter confusion, rather than intentional deception: Double Voting and Deceased Voters: When voter registration lists are matched against other databases, "matches" can turn up dead people or people…”
10heritage.orgNonprofits and think tanks
heritage.org
Backs: “Implementing safeguards—such as requiring strict photo ID, ending no-excuse mail-in voting, and frequently purging inactive voters from registration rolls—is necessary to protect the integrity of the vote and restore public confidence in elections. 2. The "Voter Access" Perspective (Opponents of Stricter Voting Laws)”
11brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “Strict ID requirements, reductions in polling locations, and aggressive voter roll purges disproportionately affect low-income, minority, student, and elderly voters who may lack the resources or documentation to easily comply. Repeated, unproven allegations of widespread fraud serve to erode public trust in…”