Is voter fraud a problem in the US?

No, voter fraud is not a significant or widespread problem in U.S. elections. It occurs at extremely low rates—typically measured in thousandths or hundred-thousandths of a percent of ballots cast—and has not been shown to alter the outcomes of federal elections. Isolated cases exist, are often prosecuted, and can matter in very close local races, but extensive data from government investigations, academic studies, audits, and even conservative trackers confirm it is rare.[1]

Key Statistics and Evidence

Multiple independent analyses reach the same conclusion:

•Overall rates: The Brennan Center for Justice, reviewing dozens of studies, found voter fraud (especially impersonation) rates of 0.0003% to 0.0025%. A person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit in-person voter impersonation. A 2014 Washington Post investigation identified 31 credible impersonation cases out of more than 1 billion ballots cast from 2000–2014. A DOJ review of 2002–2004 federal elections found a fraud rate of about 0.00000013%, with no coordinated efforts.[2]

•Heritage Foundation database (a conservative tracker of proven cases resulting in convictions, civil penalties, or official findings): As of late 2025 updates, it lists roughly 1,600–1,620 cases spanning decades (back to the 1980s or earlier), out of billions of votes cast (e.g., ~2.26 billion in federal general elections from 1982–2024). This equates to roughly 7 cases per 10 million ballots, or ~0.00007%. Brookings Institution analyses of this same data found minuscule rates in key states: Arizona had 36 cases over 25 years and ~42.6 million ballots (0.0000845%); Pennsylvania had 39 cases over 30 years and >100 million votes. No U.S. election outcome has been altered by ballot fraud according to these reviews. Cases include various types and are often individual, not systemic.[1][3]

•Recent elections: A Hearst investigation found 513 proven cases (convictions or court actions) since 2016 amid >685 million votes cast. An AP review of the 2020 election in six Trump-disputed swing states (AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, WI) found fewer than 475 potential fraud cases out of ~25.5 million ballots—far below Biden’s combined ~311,000-vote margin, with no evidence of coordination. Most were individual acts (e.g., double voting, ineligible voting), often caught before counting.[4][5]

•Mail/absentee ballots: These draw scrutiny but show very low fraud. Brookings analysis (using Heritage and other data for 2016–2022) estimated ~0.000043% (about 4 cases per 10 million mail ballots). Absentee fraud is the largest category in some trackers but still tiny relative to volume.[6]

•Noncitizen voting: Illegal and rare. Heritage lists around 20–100 cases over decades (depending on the exact timeframe/filter). State audits and studies (e.g., Brennan Center survey of jurisdictions covering 23.5 million 2016 votes) find suspected incidents at ~0.0001% or less; many “matches” are errors, outdated records, or people who later naturalized. Recent state reviews (Georgia, Michigan, Utah, etc.) consistently turn up tiny numbers of potential noncitizen registrants or voters (dozens to low hundreds at most, often over years), representing fractions of a percent of rolls. Federal prosecutions for alien voting are also scarce.[7][8][9]

Other types (double voting, felon voting where prohibited, vote buying, registration fraud) occur but remain rare relative to total ballots. Many “irregularities” stem from administrative errors, confusion, or clerical issues rather than intentional fraud.[10]

Context and Caveats

•Safeguards exist and work: Voter ID (in many states), signature matching, bipartisan poll watchers, audits, chain-of-custody rules, cross-checks with DMV/death records, and prosecutions deter and detect fraud. Election officials from both parties routinely affirm the integrity of processes.

•It is not zero: Fraud happens and should be investigated/prosecuted vigorously. Local races with tiny margins have occasionally been overturned (a small number of the Heritage cases). Vulnerabilities in registration lists, mail processes, or ballot harvesting warrant ongoing improvements (e.g., better list maintenance via tools like ERIC, where used).

•Perception vs. reality: Beliefs in widespread fraud are strongly partisan and often amplified by unproven claims (e.g., around 2020). Courts, recounts, audits, and investigations (including by Republican officials) have repeatedly rejected systemic fraud allegations. Statistical “anomalies” claimed as evidence often reflect normal variations, misunderstandings of data, or errors.[11]

•Recent enforcement: Post-2024 efforts by DOJ/DHS have led to charges in some cases (e.g., dozens to low hundreds for illegal voting or related), and referrals of potential noncitizen registrations, but these still represent tiny fractions and do not indicate scale sufficient to swing major elections.[12]

In short, U.S. elections are highly secure against fraud that could meaningfully change results. Documented fraud is a real but negligible issue—far smaller than problems like administrative errors, turnout barriers, or disinformation about elections themselves. Maintaining and strengthening election security (without unduly restricting access) remains important for public confidence. Sources across the political spectrum, when examining actual proven cases and rigorous studies, converge on rarity.

Citations (12)

1brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/
Backs: “Isolated cases exist, are often prosecuted, and can matter in very close local races, but extensive data from government investigations, academic studies, audits, and even conservative trackers confirm it is rare.”
2legalclarity.orgCommercial content
https://legalclarity.org/how-common-is-voter-fraud-what-the-evidence-shows/
Backs: “A DOJ review of 2002–2004 federal elections found a fraud rate of about 0.00000013%, with no coordinated efforts.”
3truthbased.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://www.truthbased.org/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem
Backs: “Cases include various types and are often individual, not systemic.”
4forwardky.comNot yet classified
https://www.forwardky.com/voter-fraud-claims-persist-the-numbers-tell-a-different-story/
Backs: “Most were individual acts (e.g., double voting, ineligible voting), often caught before counting.”
5apnews.comNews and mediaquality 1.00
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-pennsylvania-arizona-nevada-wisconsin-de171efb89404a8bdefb6fb83a0b4ad1
Backs: “Most were individual acts (e.g., double voting, ineligible voting), often caught before counting.”
6legalclarity.orgCommercial content
https://legalclarity.org/voter-fraud-statistics-rates-enforcement-and-laws/
Backs: “Absentee fraud is the largest category in some trackers but still tiny relative to volume.”
7brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/noncitizen-voting-vanishingly-rare
Backs: “Recent state reviews (Georgia, Michigan, Utah, etc.) consistently turn up tiny numbers of potential noncitizen registrants or voters (dozens to low hundreds at most, often over years), representing fractions of a percent of rolls. Federal prosecutions for alien voting are also scarce.”
8electioninnovation.orgAcademic
https://electioninnovation.org/research/claims-noncitizen-registration-voting-analysis-tracker/
Backs: “Recent state reviews (Georgia, Michigan, Utah, etc.) consistently turn up tiny numbers of potential noncitizen registrants or voters (dozens to low hundreds at most, often over years), representing fractions of a percent of rolls. Federal prosecutions for alien voting are also scarce.”
9migrationpolicy.orgNonprofits and think tanks
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/explainer/noncitizen-voting-us-elections
Backs: “Recent state reviews (Georgia, Michigan, Utah, etc.) consistently turn up tiny numbers of potential noncitizen registrants or voters (dozens to low hundreds at most, often over years), representing fractions of a percent of rolls. Federal prosecutions for alien voting are also scarce.”
10wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud_in_the_United_States
Backs: “Many “irregularities” stem from administrative errors, confusion, or clerical issues rather than intentional fraud.”
11stanford.eduAcademic
https://humsci.stanford.edu/feature/debunking-evidence-election-fraud-cases
Backs: “Statistical “anomalies” claimed as evidence often reflect normal variations, misunderstandings of data, or errors.”
12newsbreak.comNews and mediaquality 0.41
https://www.newsbreak.com/newsnation-2045693/4945729275123-why-dhs-and-doj-use-special-agents-to-root-out-alleged-voter-fraud
Backs: “Post-2024 efforts by DOJ/DHS have led to charges in some cases (e.g., dozens to low hundreds for illegal voting or related), and referrals of potential noncitizen registrations, but these still represent tiny fractions and do not indicate scale sufficient to swing major elections.”