Is voter fraud a problem in the US?

The question of whether voter fraud is a problem in the United States is a subject of significant public debate. However, the overwhelming consensus among election security experts, academic researchers, government agencies, and courts is that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and does not occur on a scale that could alter the outcome of major elections.

To understand the scope of the issue, it is helpful to look at the empirical data, the arguments of those who advocate for stricter voting laws, and the difference between actual fraud and administrative errors.

1. The Empirical Consensus: Fraud is "Vanishingly Rare"

Dozens of academic studies, government investigations, and journalistic audits have consistently found that individual voter fraud—such as impersonating another voter, voting twice, or noncitizen voting—is almost nonexistent.

•The Brennan Center for Justice: A landmark study by the Brennan Center reviewed meticulously tracked elections and placed the rate of voter fraud between 0.0003% and 0.0025%. They famously noted that an American is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate another voter at the polls.

•Associated Press (AP) Investigation: Following the highly contested 2020 presidential election, the AP conducted an exhaustive review of voting in six battleground states. Out of more than 25 million ballots cast, they found fewer than 475 potential cases of fraud. Nearly all were isolated incidents, many were caught before the votes were counted, and the total was nowhere near enough to affect the outcome in any state.

•Department of Justice (DOJ) and CISA: Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, federal agencies have maintained that U.S. elections are highly secure. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and its election partners declared the 2020 election to be "the most secure in American history," stating there was "no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

2. Evaluating Conservative and Reformist Concerns

Proponents of stricter voting laws (such as strict photo ID requirements, signature matching, or limitations on mail-in voting) argue that even if fraud is rare, any level of illegal voting is a problem because it "dilutes" legitimate votes.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains an "Election Fraud Database" to track proven instances of voter fraud.

•The Heritage Data: As of recent counts, the database has documented roughly 1,500 proven instances of election fraud over a span of more than 40 years.

•The Interpretation: Proponents of stricter voting laws point to these cases as evidence that vulnerabilities exist and that the system can be compromised. Conversely, nonpartisan researchers and political scientists point to this very database as proof of how rare fraud actually is. Because the database spans decades and billions of votes cast, the actual rate of fraud in the database represents a microscopic fraction of a percent of overall votes (for example, finding only 36 cases of fraud in Arizona over a 25-year period in which 42 million votes were cast).

•Impact on Close Elections: Advocates also argue that in razor-thin local elections (such as mayoral or county commissioner races), a very small number of fraudulent or mishandled mail-in ballots could theoretically alter the outcome, making preventative security crucial.

3. "Fraud" vs. Clerical and Administrative Errors

Much of the public confusion around voter fraud stems from confusing intentional voter fraud with administrative mistakes or outdated database records.

•Outdated Voter Rolls: Critics often point to voter rolls that still list deceased individuals or people who have moved to another state as "voter fraud." However, unless someone actually attempts to cast a ballot using those names (which is illegal and heavily policed), an outdated voter roll is simply a database maintenance issue, not active fraud.

•Voter and Clerical Mistakes: Examples often cited as "fraud" by political commentators—such as a voter mistakenly voting in the wrong precinct or a poll worker making a clerical error—are typically unintentional mistakes.

•System Safeguards: Modern election administration is built with multiple layers of defense, including paper trails, signature verification, secure drop boxes, and bipartisan post-election audits. These mechanisms are highly effective at detecting and correcting errors before election results are certified.

Summary

While voter fraud occasionally happens on an individual level (and those who commit it are routinely prosecuted), there is no evidence of widespread, systemic, or coordinated voter fraud in the United States. For most election administrators and experts, the primary challenge is not preventing rampant fraud, but rather balancing strong, common-sense security measures with ensuring that all eligible voters have easy, unimpeded access to the ballot.

Citations (14)

1brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “However, the overwhelming consensus among election security experts, academic researchers, government agencies, and courts is that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and does not occur on a scale that could alter the outcome of major elections.”
2wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “However, the overwhelming consensus among election security experts, academic researchers, government agencies, and courts is that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and does not occur on a scale that could alter the outcome of major elections.”
3brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “However, the overwhelming consensus among election security experts, academic researchers, government agencies, and courts is that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and does not occur on a scale that could alter the outcome of major elections.”
4brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “Dozens of academic studies, government investigations, and journalistic audits have consistently found that individual voter fraud—such as impersonating another voter, voting twice, or noncitizen voting—is almost nonexistent. The Brennan Center for Justice: A landmark study by the Brennan Center reviewed meticulously…”
5brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “Dozens of academic studies, government investigations, and journalistic audits have consistently found that individual voter fraud—such as impersonating another voter, voting twice, or noncitizen voting—is almost nonexistent. The Brennan Center for Justice: A landmark study by the Brennan Center reviewed meticulously…”
6brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “Dozens of academic studies, government investigations, and journalistic audits have consistently found that individual voter fraud—such as impersonating another voter, voting twice, or noncitizen voting—is almost nonexistent. The Brennan Center for Justice: A landmark study by the Brennan Center reviewed meticulously…”
7americanbar.orgNonprofits and think tanks
americanbar.org
Backs: “Associated Press (AP) Investigation: Following the highly contested 2020 presidential election, the AP conducted an exhaustive review of voting in six battleground states. Out of more than 25 million ballots cast, they found fewer than 475 potential cases of fraud.”
8nextgov.comNews and mediaquality 0.85
nextgov.com
Backs: “Department of Justice (DOJ) and CISA: Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, federal agencies have maintained that U.S. elections are highly secure. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and its election partners declared the 2020 election to be "the most secure in American…”
9heritage.orgNonprofits and think tanks
heritage.org
Backs: “Proponents of stricter voting laws (such as strict photo ID requirements, signature matching, or limitations on mail-in voting) argue that even if fraud is rare, any level of illegal voting is a problem because it "dilutes" legitimate votes. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains an "Election…”
10heritage.orgNonprofits and think tanks
heritage.org
Backs: “Proponents of stricter voting laws (such as strict photo ID requirements, signature matching, or limitations on mail-in voting) argue that even if fraud is rare, any level of illegal voting is a problem because it "dilutes" legitimate votes. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains an "Election…”
11heritage.orgNonprofits and think tanks
heritage.org
Backs: “The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains an "Election Fraud Database" to track proven instances of voter fraud. The Heritage Data: As of recent counts, the database has documented roughly 1,500 proven instances of election fraud over a span of more than 40 years.”
12house.govGovernment
house.gov
Backs: “The Heritage Data: As of recent counts, the database has documented roughly 1,500 proven instances of election fraud over a span of more than 40 years. The Interpretation: Proponents of stricter voting laws point to these cases as evidence that vulnerabilities exist and that the system can be compromised.”
13brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “Because the database spans decades and billions of votes cast, the actual rate of fraud in the database represents a microscopic fraction of a percent of overall votes (for example, finding only 36 cases of fraud in Arizona over a 25-year period in which 42 million votes were cast). Impact on Close Elections:…”
14ddia.orgNot yet classified
ddia.org
Backs: “Much of the public confusion around voter fraud stems from confusing intentional voter fraud with administrative mistakes or outdated database records.”