Is voter fraud a problem in the US?

There is an overwhelming consensus among election security experts, academic researchers, and legal investigations that systemic or widespread voter fraud does not exist in the United States. While isolated, individual instances of voter fraud do occur, they are exceedingly rare and have not altered the outcome of any modern federal election.

However, voter fraud remains one of the most prominent and polarized issues in American politics. The debate is largely divided between two competing philosophies: one focused on election security (preventing any potential illegal voting) and the other on voter access (ensuring eligible voters are not disenfranchised by overly restrictive rules).

Below is an overview of what the data shows, the common types of fraud discussed, and the arguments surrounding the issue.

1. What the Data Shows

Decades of research from nonpartisan, academic, and governmental organizations show that the actual rate of voter fraud in the U.S. is vanishingly small.

•The Heritage Foundation Database: The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains a database of proven election fraud cases to highlight system vulnerabilities. As of recent years, the database lists roughly 1,500 proven cases of fraud accumulated over a period of more than 40 years. An analysis of this data by the Brookings Institution found that when compared against the billions of ballots cast over those decades, the fraud rate is minuscule—typically around 0.0001% or less per state—and did not alter election outcomes.

•The Associated Press 2020 Review: Following the heavily contested 2020 presidential election, the Associated Press conducted a comprehensive review of every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by Donald Trump. They found fewer than 475 potential cases of fraud out of more than 25 million votes cast—representing less than 0.002% of the total. The review concluded there was no coordinated or systemic effort; nearly every case involved an individual acting alone (e.g., voting on behalf of a deceased relative or trying to vote twice).

•Academic Studies: A multi-year study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Election Data and Science Lab found that mail-in ballot fraud occurs in only about 0.00006% of individual votes cast nationally.

2. Common Types of Alleged Fraud

Debates about voter fraud usually center on a few specific categories:

•In-Person Voter Impersonation: This involves someone showing up at a polling place pretending to be someone else. Studies have shown this is the rarest form of fraud. Experts note it makes little logical sense: a bad actor would have to risk a felony charge and major fines to cast a single vote that is highly unlikely to sway an election.

•Mail-In/Absentee Ballot Fraud: Statistically, mail-in ballots are slightly more vulnerable to abuse than in-person voting, but documented fraud remains extremely rare. States use multiple safeguards to secure mail-in voting, including signature verification, barcoded tracking envelopes unique to each voter, and secure drop boxes.

•Noncitizen Voting: Under federal law, it is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Proponents of stricter laws argue that large numbers of noncitizens are registered to vote. However, audits by both Democratic and Republican state election officials have consistently found that noncitizen voting is virtually non-existent. For example, a 2025 audit by the Michigan Department of State found only 15 credible cases of noncitizens casting ballots out of 5.7 million votes. In Georgia, a comprehensive audit of the state's voter rolls identified only 20 noncitizens out of 8.2 million registered voters over a 25-year span.

Note: Outdated voter registration rolls—which include people who have moved or died—are often conflated with voter fraud. While voter rolls frequently contain inaccuracies, having an outdated registration on a list is not the same as someone actually casting an illegal vote. States regularly clean up these rolls through federally mandated maintenance programs.

3. Why is Widespread Fraud So Difficult to Commit?

The structure of the U.S. election system makes a coordinated, outcome-altering fraud conspiracy highly improbable.

•Decentralization: The U.S. does not have a single national election system. Instead, elections are run at the local county and municipal levels by thousands of independent election administrators across 50 states. It would be virtually impossible to secretly coordinate a massive, multi-state conspiracy across thousands of different voting jurisdictions, machines, and paper processes.

•Bipartisan Oversight: In almost all jurisdictions, voting, counting, and auditing are conducted by bipartisan teams of workers. Representatives from both major political parties are legally permitted to observe the counting and processing of ballots.

•Paper Trails and Audits: The vast majority of Americans now vote using paper ballots or electronic machines that produce a voter-verified paper audit trail. This allows election officials to conduct post-election hand counts and audits to verify that the digital tallies match the physical paper ballots.

4. The Political Debate: Security vs. Access

Despite the mathematical rarity of voter fraud, it remains a highly divisive political issue because of how different groups prioritize election laws:

•The Case for Stricter Laws (Election Security): Proponents of stricter voting laws (primarily Republicans) argue that even if fraud is rare, any single fraudulent vote invalidates a legitimate vote and damages public trust in democratic institutions. They argue that measures like requiring government-issued photo ID, restricting mail-in voting, eliminating ballot drop boxes, and carrying out frequent voter roll purges are common-sense steps to ensure election integrity.

•The Case Against Stricter Laws (Voter Access): Critics of these laws (primarily Democrats and civil rights organizations) argue that strict voting laws are "solutions in search of a problem." They contend that these measures do not stop fraud—which is already heavily penalized and rare—but instead make it harder for eligible citizens to vote. Studies show that strict ID laws and reductions in early or mail-in voting disproportionately affect low-income, minority, student, elderly, and disabled voters, who are less likely to have government IDs or flexible schedules to vote in person.

Citations (11)

1projectvote.orgNonprofits and think tanks
projectvote.org
Backs: “There is an overwhelming consensus among election security experts, academic researchers, and legal investigations that systemic or widespread voter fraud does not exist in the United States. While isolated, individual instances of voter fraud do occur, they are exceedingly rare and have not altered the outcome of any…”
2electioninnovation.orgAcademic
electioninnovation.org
Backs: “There is an overwhelming consensus among election security experts, academic researchers, and legal investigations that systemic or widespread voter fraud does not exist in the United States. While isolated, individual instances of voter fraud do occur, they are exceedingly rare and have not altered the outcome of any…”
3wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “There is an overwhelming consensus among election security experts, academic researchers, and legal investigations that systemic or widespread voter fraud does not exist in the United States. While isolated, individual instances of voter fraud do occur, they are exceedingly rare and have not altered the outcome of any…”
4brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “There is an overwhelming consensus among election security experts, academic researchers, and legal investigations that systemic or widespread voter fraud does not exist in the United States. While isolated, individual instances of voter fraud do occur, they are exceedingly rare and have not altered the outcome of any…”
5heritage.orgNonprofits and think tanks
heritage.org
Backs: “The debate is largely divided between two competing philosophies: one focused on election security (preventing any potential illegal voting) and the other on voter access (ensuring eligible voters are not disenfranchised by overly restrictive rules).”
6sciline.orgNonprofits and think tanks
sciline.org
Backs: “What the Data Shows. Decades of research from nonpartisan, academic, and governmental organizations show that the actual rate of voter fraud in the U.S. is vanishingly small.”
7heritage.orgNonprofits and think tanks
heritage.org
Backs: “The Heritage Foundation Database: The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains a database of proven election fraud cases to highlight system vulnerabilities.”
8forbes.comNews and mediaquality 0.83
forbes.com
Backs: “Proponents of stricter laws argue that large numbers of noncitizens are registered to vote. However, audits by both Democratic and Republican state election officials have consistently found that noncitizen voting is virtually non-existent.”
9fairelectionscenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
fairelectionscenter.org
Backs: “However, audits by both Democratic and Republican state election officials have consistently found that noncitizen voting is virtually non-existent. For example, a 2025 audit by the Michigan Department of State found only 15 credible cases of noncitizens casting ballots out of 5.7 million votes.”
10time.comNews and mediaquality 0.83
time.com
Backs: “For example, a 2025 audit by the Michigan Department of State found only 15 credible cases of noncitizens casting ballots out of 5.7 million votes. In Georgia, a comprehensive audit of the state's voter rolls identified only 20 noncitizens out of 8.2 million registered voters over a 25-year span.”
11statesunited.orgNonprofits and think tanks
statesunited.org
Backs: “The Case Against Stricter Laws (Voter Access): Critics of these laws (primarily Democrats and civil rights organizations) argue that strict voting laws are "solutions in search of a problem." They contend that these measures do not stop fraud—which is already heavily penalized and rare—but instead make it harder for…”