Is voter fraud a problem in the US?

NoSays it is contested

According to a vast body of academic research, government audits, and bipartisan investigations, widespread, systemic voter fraud is not a problem in the United States.

There is an overwhelming consensus among election experts, political scientists, and law enforcement that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and has not affected the outcome of any modern U.S. presidential or federal election.

However, public perception and the political debate surrounding "election integrity" versus "voter access" remain highly polarized.

1. What the Data and Studies Show

Numerous studies and databases have attempted to quantify the prevalence of voter fraud in the U.S.:

•The Heritage Foundation Database: The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains a database of proven voter fraud cases to argue for stricter election laws. However, an analysis of their database shows that fraud is miniscule. For example, they documented roughly 1,400 to 1,600 cases of fraud over several decades—a period during which hundreds of millions of ballots were cast. In battleground states like Pennsylvania, they identified only 39 cases of fraud over a 30-year period spanning 32 elections and over 100 million votes cast.

•MIT Election Data and Science Lab: MIT researchers tracking decades of elections concluded that the level of mail-in ballot fraud is "exceedingly rare," occurring in approximately 0.00006% of individual votes cast nationally.

•The Brookings Institution: Looking at elections from 2016 through 2022, Brookings estimated there were only about four cases of fraud for every 10 million mail ballots cast (roughly 0.00004%).

•Associated Press 2020 Review: The AP conducted an exhaustive review of potential voter fraud in six key battleground states in the 2020 presidential election. Out of more than 25 million votes cast in those states, they found fewer than 475 potential (mostly unconfirmed) cases of fraud, which would not have altered the outcome of any contest.

2. Common Categories of Fraud

•In-Person Voter Impersonation: This type of fraud—where someone shows up at a polling place pretending to be someone else—is virtually nonexistent. A landmark study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate another voter at the polls.

•Mail-In Ballot Fraud: While mail-in or absentee ballots are slightly more vulnerable to fraud than in-person voting, the occurrence is still incredibly rare. States use strict safeguards, including barcode tracking, signature verification, and secure drop boxes to mitigate risk.

•Noncitizen Voting: Federal law strictly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. Studies consistently show that actual noncitizen voting is a statistical anomaly. A Brennan Center study looking at 42 jurisdictions with high noncitizen populations during the 2016 election found only 30 suspected cases of noncitizen voting out of 23.5 million votes cast (0.0001%). While administrative errors (such as DMV software glitches) occasionally result in noncitizens being mistakenly added to voter rolls, audits demonstrate that very few of these individuals ever attempt to cast a ballot.

3. Why Is Voter Fraud So Rare?

Multiple structural factors keep voter fraud extremely low in the U.S.:

1.High Risk, No Reward: Under federal law, voting illegally is a felony punishable by heavy fines, years in prison, and (for noncitizens) immediate deportation. Because a single vote is highly unlikely to change the outcome of an election, there is almost no incentive for an individual to risk their livelihood to cast an illegal ballot.

2.Decentralized Administration: U.S. elections are not run by a single federal agency; they are decentralized and run by thousands of local and county officials. This makes coordinated, large-scale rigging of elections logistically impossible to execute without detection.

3.Strict Security Measures: Election systems are equipped with multiple layers of security. Nearly 98% of votes cast in federal elections have a voter-verifiable paper trail. Additionally, states conduct post-election audits, logic and accuracy tests on voting machines, and permit bipartisan poll watchers from both major parties to monitor the counting process.

4. The Two Sides of the Political Debate

Despite the empirical data, voter fraud is a central issue in American politics, dividing lawmakers and voters into two main camps:

•Proponents of Stricter Voting Laws: Many conservative lawmakers and organizations argue that even a single fraudulent vote is a threat to democracy because it dilutes the votes of legal citizens and damages public confidence. They advocate for preventive measures—such as strict photo ID requirements, routine purges of voter registration lists, and proof-of-citizenship mandates (like the SAVE Act)—to ensure "election integrity" and make it "easy to vote but hard to cheat."

•Advocates for Voter Access: On the other side, voting rights groups and liberal lawmakers argue that because voter fraud is practically nonexistent, pushing for strict voting requirements is a "solution in search of a problem." They argue that these laws act as a form of voter suppression, disproportionately disenfranchising low-income voters, students, elderly citizens, and racial minorities who may struggle to obtain specific, costly documentation (like passports or birth certificates).

Summary

While actual voter fraud is statistically negligible and does not threaten the accuracy of U.S. elections, the perception of voter fraud is a major political issue. This debate continues to shape state laws, polarize the electorate, and impact public trust in democratic institutions.

Citations (9)

1projectvote.orgNonprofits and think tanks
projectvote.org
Backs: “According to a vast body of academic research, government audits, and bipartisan investigations, widespread, systemic voter fraud is not a problem in the United States.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Widespread, systemic voter fraud is not a problem in the US, per research, audits, and bipartisan investigations.
2sciline.orgNonprofits and think tanks
sciline.org
Backs: “According to a vast body of academic research, government audits, and bipartisan investigations, widespread, systemic voter fraud is not a problem in the United States.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Widespread, systemic voter fraud is not a problem in the US, per research, audits, and bipartisan investigations.
3americanbar.orgNonprofits and think tanks
americanbar.org
Backs: “According to a vast body of academic research, government audits, and bipartisan investigations, widespread, systemic voter fraud is not a problem in the United States.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Widespread, systemic voter fraud is not a problem in the US, per research, audits, and bipartisan investigations.
4brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “There is an overwhelming consensus among election experts, political scientists, and law enforcement that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and has not affected the outcome of any modern U.S. presidential or federal election.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Experts broadly agree voter fraud is exceedingly rare and has not affected the outcome of modern federal elections.
5brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “There is an overwhelming consensus among election experts, political scientists, and law enforcement that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and has not affected the outcome of any modern U.S. presidential or federal election.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Experts broadly agree voter fraud is exceedingly rare and has not affected the outcome of modern federal elections.
6wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “However, public perception and the political debate surrounding "election integrity" versus "voter access" remain highly polarized.”
background, reference entry, neutral. Claim: Public perception and the political debate over election integrity versus voter access remain highly polarized.
7americanimmigrationcouncil.orgNonprofits and think tanks
americanimmigrationcouncil.org
Backs: “The Heritage Foundation Database: The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains a database of proven voter fraud cases to argue for stricter election laws.”
background, article, points to no. Claim: Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, maintains a database of proven voter fraud cases to argue for stricter election laws.
8fairelectionscenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
fairelectionscenter.org
Backs: “Noncitizen Voting: Federal law strictly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. Studies consistently show that actual noncitizen voting is a statistical anomaly.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Federal law prohibits noncitizen voting, and studies show actual noncitizen voting is a statistical anomaly.
9ballotpedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.89
ballotpedia.org
Backs: “A Brennan Center study looking at 42 jurisdictions with high noncitizen populations during the 2016 election found only 30 suspected cases of noncitizen voting out of 23.5 million votes cast (0.0001%). While administrative errors (such as DMV software glitches) occasionally result in noncitizens being mistakenly added…”
statistic, reference entry, points to no. Claim: Brennan Center study of 42 jurisdictions in 2016 found 30 suspected noncitizen votes out of 23.5 million cast.