Is voter fraud a problem in the US?

NoSays it is contested

Based on extensive research, official audits, and court rulings, there is an overwhelming consensus among election security experts, political scientists, and government officials that woter fraud is exceedingly rare and not a widespread or systemic problem in the United States.

While isolated instances of voter fraud do occur, they represent a microscopic fraction of overall ballots cast and are not on a scale that could alter the outcome of a state or national election.

Below is an overview of the key data, security measures, and the ongoing political debate surrounding the issue.

1. What the Data and Research Show

Numerous studies conducted by both nonpartisan groups and partisan organizations of varying ideologies have consistently reached the same conclusion: voter fraud is a negligible occurrence.

•The Heritage Foundation Database: The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that maintains a comprehensive database of proven election fraud cases to argue for stricter voting laws, has documented roughly 1,500 proven cases of voter fraud spanning several decades. A Brookings Institution analysis of this data showed that, when contrasted with the billions of votes cast during that same time frame, the rate of fraud is minuscule (typically between 0.00004% and 0.0009% depending on the state). None of these cases were found to have altered the outcome of any election.

•The 2020 Presidential Election: Following massive scrutiny of the 2020 election, an Associated Press review of six critical swing states (where more than 25 million total votes were cast) identified fewer than 475 potential cases of voter fraud. Post-election audits, court challenges, and investigations by election officials from both major parties confirmed there was no evidence of fraud sufficient to change the results.

•Noncitizen Voting: While it is a federal crime for noncitizens to register or vote in federal elections, claims of widespread noncitizen voting have repeatedly been shown to be unsubstantiated. For example, a Census Bureau report analyzing the 2020 election found that out of over 128 million analyzed voters, less than 0.019% were flagged as potential noncitizens, with experts noting that many of those flags are likely due to clerical and database-matching errors rather than actual illegal voting.

•Voter Impersonation: Studies have found that in-person voter impersonation (someone pretending to be another registered voter at the polls) is virtually non-existent. A prominent study by a Loyola Law School professor tracked more than 1 billion ballots cast between 2000 and 2014 and found only 31 credible incidents of voter impersonation.

2. Why Is Voter Fraud So Rare?

Experts point to several systemic and legal reasons why voter fraud is highly uncommon:

•High Risk, Low Reward: The penalties for voter fraud are severe, typically carrying heavy fines, felony conviction, prison time, and—for noncitizens—deportation. Because a single vote has an infinitesimal chance of changing an election outcome, there is almost no rational incentive for an individual to risk their livelihood to cast an illegal ballot.

•Decentralized System: The U.S. election system is highly decentralized and run primarily at the county and municipal levels. This fragmentation makes any coordinated, large-scale effort to rig or manipulate voting systems exceptionally difficult to execute without detection.

•Layered Security Safeguards: Modern voting infrastructure relies on multiple layers of security, including bipartisan observation, signature verification on mail-in ballots, routine auditing of voting machines, secure paper trails, and pre-election accuracy testing.

3. The Core Political Debate

Despite the consensus that fraud is rare, the issue remains a major flashpoint in American politics, split broadly into two camps:

Proponents of Stricter Voting Laws

Many conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups argue that even a single fraudulent vote is unacceptable and that loose regulations invite potential abuse. They contend that implementing stricter laws—such as requiring government-issued photo identification, eliminating drop boxes, curtailing mail-in ballots, and conducting regular voter roll purges—is necessary to ensure election integrity and boost public confidence in election outcomes.

Opponents of Stricter Voting Laws

Voting rights advocates, civil rights organizations, and many progressive lawmakers argue that because actual fraud is extremely rare, these strict laws are a "solution in search of a problem". They point out that obtaining a government-issued photo ID can be costly, time-consuming, and difficult for low-income citizens, students, the elderly, and minority voters. They argue that stricter regulations act as "voter suppression"—disproportionately disenfranchising eligible voters in the name of preventing a phantom threat.

Citations (12)

1sciline.orgNonprofits and think tanks
sciline.org
Backs: “Based on extensive research, official audits, and court rulings, there is an overwhelming consensus among election security experts, political scientists, and government officials that woter fraud is exceedingly rare and not a widespread or systemic problem in the United States.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Overwhelming expert consensus that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and not widespread or systemic in the US.
2projectvote.orgNonprofits and think tanks
projectvote.org
Backs: “Based on extensive research, official audits, and court rulings, there is an overwhelming consensus among election security experts, political scientists, and government officials that woter fraud is exceedingly rare and not a widespread or systemic problem in the United States.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Overwhelming expert consensus that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and not widespread or systemic in the US.
3brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “While isolated instances of voter fraud do occur, they represent a microscopic fraction of overall ballots cast and are not on a scale that could alter the outcome of a state or national election.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Isolated fraud instances are a microscopic fraction of ballots and cannot alter election outcomes.
4facebook.comSocial media and video
facebook.com
Backs: “While isolated instances of voter fraud do occur, they represent a microscopic fraction of overall ballots cast and are not on a scale that could alter the outcome of a state or national election.”
evidence, other, points to no. Claim: Isolated fraud instances are a microscopic fraction of ballots and cannot alter election outcomes.
5brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “What the Data and Research Show. Numerous studies conducted by both nonpartisan groups and partisan organizations of varying ideologies have consistently reached the same conclusion: voter fraud is a negligible occurrence.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Numerous studies from nonpartisan and partisan groups consistently find voter fraud negligible.
6americanbar.orgNonprofits and think tanks
americanbar.org
Backs: “The 2020 Presidential Election: Following massive scrutiny of the 2020 election, an Associated Press review of six critical swing states (where more than 25 million total votes were cast) identified fewer than 475 potential cases of voter fraud.”
statistic, article, points to no. Claim: AP review of six swing states with over 25 million votes found fewer than 475 potential fraud cases in 2020.
7brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “Voter Impersonation: Studies have found that in-person voter impersonation (someone pretending to be another registered voter at the polls) is virtually non-existent.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: In-person voter impersonation is virtually non-existent according to studies.
8napawash.orgNonprofits and think tanks
napawash.org
Backs: “Decentralized System: The U.S. election system is highly decentralized and run primarily at the county and municipal levels. This fragmentation makes any coordinated, large-scale effort to rig or manipulate voting systems exceptionally difficult to execute without detection.”
background, article, points to no. Claim: US election system is decentralized, run at county and municipal levels, making large-scale rigging difficult.
9britannica.comEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
britannica.com
Backs: “The Core Political Debate. Despite the consensus that fraud is rare, the issue remains a major flashpoint in American politics, split broadly into two camps: Proponents of Stricter Voting Laws”
background, reference entry, neutral. Claim: Despite consensus that fraud is rare, the issue remains a major political flashpoint split into two camps.
10closeup.orgNonprofits and think tanks
closeup.org
Backs: “Proponents of Stricter Voting Laws. Many conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups argue that even a single fraudulent vote is unacceptable and that loose regulations invite potential abuse. They contend that implementing stricter laws—such as requiring government-issued photo identification, eliminating drop boxes,…”
attribution, article, points to yes. Claim: Conservative lawmakers and groups argue even one fraudulent vote is unacceptable and loose rules invite abuse.
11ballotpedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.89
ballotpedia.org
Backs: “They contend that implementing stricter laws—such as requiring government-issued photo identification, eliminating drop boxes, curtailing mail-in ballots, and conducting regular voter roll purges—is necessary to ensure election integrity and boost public confidence in election outcomes. Opponents of Stricter Voting…”
attribution, reference entry, points to yes. Claim: Proponents say stricter laws like photo ID, fewer drop boxes and voter roll purges are needed for election integrity.
12naacpldf.orgNonprofits and think tanks
naacpldf.org
Backs: “They argue that stricter regulations act as "voter suppression"—disproportionately disenfranchising eligible voters in the name of preventing a phantom threat. 1.”
attribution, article, points to no. Claim: Opponents argue strict laws are voter suppression that disenfranchise eligible voters to prevent a phantom threat.