Is voter fraud a problem in the US?

According to a broad consensus of election experts, academics, nonpartisan researchers, and government investigations, voter fraud is not a widespread or systemic problem in the United States. While isolated cases of voter fraud do occur—and are investigated and prosecuted—they represent an extraordinarily tiny fraction of a percent of all ballots cast and are not nearly prevalent enough to alter the outcome of federal, state, or major local elections.

Despite its rarity, voter fraud remains a highly contentious political topic. To understand the issue, it is helpful to look at the empirical data, the types of fraud most frequently discussed, and the debate surrounding election security.

1. What the Data and Studies Show

Numerous studies and databases compiled by both progressive and conservative groups demonstrate that voter fraud is exceedingly rare:

•The Heritage Foundation Database: The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains a database of proven election fraud cases dating back to 1979. It is often cited by proponents of stricter voting laws. However, an analysis of this database by the Brookings Institution revealed that over several decades, the database documented roughly 1,500 proven cases nationwide—averaging only about 33 cases per year. In highly contested states like Pennsylvania, the database found only 39 cases of fraud out of over 100 million votes cast over a 30-year period (a rate of 0.0000388%).

•Mail-In Ballot Fraud: While critics frequently express concern that voting by mail is highly vulnerable to manipulation, researchers have found it to be incredibly secure. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that mail-in ballot fraud occurs in only about 0.00006% of individual votes cast. Similarly, Brookings Institution researchers analyzed elections between 2016 and 2022 and found about four cases of mail-in fraud for every 10 million ballots cast (0.000043%).

•Noncitizen Voting: Noncitizen voting is illegal in federal elections. Extensive audits and studies show it is virtually non-existent. A Brennan Center for Justice study of the 2016 election across 42 jurisdictions found just 30 suspected cases of noncitizen voting out of 23.5 million votes cast (0.0001%). Even when occasional administrative errors occur—such as a software glitch in New Jersey that accidentally registered about 6,600 noncitizens—audits showed that security protocols worked, and fewer than 400 of those individuals actually cast a ballot.

2. Why is Voter Fraud So Rare?

The U.S. election system relies on a decentralized structure administered by thousands of local jurisdictions, making a coordinated, large-scale rigging effort nearly impossible to execute without immediate detection. Key security measures include:

•Voter Roll Maintenance: States regularly clean their voter registration lists to remove deceased individuals, those who have moved, and those who have lost their eligibility.

•Identity and Signature Verification: Mail-in ballots require signature verification, tracking barcodes, and sometimes witness signatures or notary approval. In-person voting often requires identification, signature matching, or biometric confirmation.

•Bipartisan Oversight: Poll workers and election observers from both major political parties oversee the voting, counting, and auditing processes.

•Paper Trails and Audits: Most jurisdictions use paper ballots or voting machines that generate a verifiable paper audit trail, allowing for hand recounts and post-election audits to verify machine accuracy.

3. Why is It Perceived as a Major Problem?

Despite overwhelming evidence that elections are secure, polls show that a significant portion of the American public—particularly registered Republicans—believes that voter fraud is common.

This disconnect between perception and reality is largely driven by:

•Political Rhetoric: High-profile political figures and candidates have repeatedly claimed, often without evidence, that elections are "rigged" or "stolen".

•Media and Social Media Amplification: Sensationalized or false claims about voting machines, "ballot harvesting," and illegal voting are widely shared online and covered by partisan media outlets.

•Fundraising and Mobilization: Various advocacy groups use the narrative of widespread voter fraud to raise money and mobilize voters.

4. The Policy Debate: Security vs. Access

The debate over how to handle the perception of voter fraud has divided lawmakers into two main camps:

•The "Election Integrity" Camp: Proponents of stricter voting laws (such as requiring strict government-issued photo IDs, ending no-excuse mail-in voting, and implementing proof-of-citizenship requirements) argue that even a single fraudulent vote is unacceptable. They contend that tightening the rules is necessary to boost public confidence in election outcomes, even if the actual rate of fraud is low.

•The "Voter Access" Camp: Critics of these measures argue that because voter fraud is practically non-existent, strict new laws are a solution in search of a problem. They contend that these laws act as "voter suppression" by making it disproportionately harder for low-income citizens, students, minorities, and elderly voters—who may lack the necessary documents or flexible schedules—to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Citations (9)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “According to a broad consensus of election experts, academics, nonpartisan researchers, and government investigations, voter fraud is not a widespread or systemic problem in the United States. While isolated cases of voter fraud do occur—and are investigated and prosecuted—they represent an extraordinarily tiny…”
2frontiersin.orgAcademic
frontiersin.org
Backs: “According to a broad consensus of election experts, academics, nonpartisan researchers, and government investigations, voter fraud is not a widespread or systemic problem in the United States. While isolated cases of voter fraud do occur—and are investigated and prosecuted—they represent an extraordinarily tiny…”
3wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “According to a broad consensus of election experts, academics, nonpartisan researchers, and government investigations, voter fraud is not a widespread or systemic problem in the United States. While isolated cases of voter fraud do occur—and are investigated and prosecuted—they represent an extraordinarily tiny…”
4facebook.comSocial media and video
facebook.com
Backs: “According to a broad consensus of election experts, academics, nonpartisan researchers, and government investigations, voter fraud is not a widespread or systemic problem in the United States. While isolated cases of voter fraud do occur—and are investigated and prosecuted—they represent an extraordinarily tiny…”
5brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “In highly contested states like Pennsylvania, the database found only 39 cases of fraud out of over 100 million votes cast over a 30-year period (a rate of 0.0000388%). Mail-In Ballot Fraud: While critics frequently express concern that voting by mail is highly vulnerable to manipulation, researchers have found it to…”
6sciline.orgNonprofits and think tanks
sciline.org
Backs: “Mail-In Ballot Fraud: While critics frequently express concern that voting by mail is highly vulnerable to manipulation, researchers have found it to be incredibly secure. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that mail-in ballot fraud occurs in only about 0.00006% of individual votes cast.”
7time.comNews and mediaquality 0.83
time.com
Backs: “Mail-In Ballot Fraud: While critics frequently express concern that voting by mail is highly vulnerable to manipulation, researchers have found it to be incredibly secure. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that mail-in ballot fraud occurs in only about 0.00006% of individual votes cast.”
8justice.govGovernment
justice.gov
Backs: “Noncitizen Voting: Noncitizen voting is illegal in federal elections. Extensive audits and studies show it is virtually non-existent.”
9stanford.eduAcademic
stanford.edu
Backs: “In-person voting often requires identification, signature matching, or biometric confirmation. Bipartisan Oversight: Poll workers and election observers from both major political parties oversee the voting, counting, and auditing processes.”