Is voter fraud a problem in the US?

NoSays it is contested

Based on comprehensive research, academic studies, and investigations by government and nonpartisan groups, voter fraud is exceptionally rare in the United States. While isolated incidents do occur and are prosecuted, there is no evidence of widespread or systemic voter fraud on a scale that could alter the outcome of a state or national election.

However, the topic remains highly debated. The discussion generally centers around two competing concerns: maintaining election security (integrity) versus maximizing voter participation (access).

What the Data Shows

To understand the scope of voter fraud, researchers and organizations across the political spectrum have analyzed election data over decades:

•The Heritage Foundation (Conservative Think Tank): Heritage maintains a database tracking proven cases of election fraud to highlight vulnerabilities. As of late 2023, the database recorded roughly 1,465 proven cases nationwide spanning more than 44 years—an average of about 33 cases per year.

•A 2024 analysis of this database by the Brookings Institution focused on seven swing states. It found that in Arizona, Heritage identified 36 cases of fraud over 25 years out of more than 42 million ballots cast (a rate of 0.0000845%). In Pennsylvania, they identified 39 cases over 30 years out of 100 million ballots cast (0.0000388%).

•MIT Election Data and Science Lab: A study on mail-in ballot fraud found it to be "exceedingly rare," occurring in approximately 0.00006% of individual votes cast nationally.

•The Associated Press (2020 Election Review): The AP conducted an in-depth review of the 2020 presidential election in six battleground states. Out of more than 25 million votes cast, they identified fewer than 475 potential cases of voter fraud. Most involved isolated individuals (such as trying to vote twice or casting a ballot for a deceased relative), none of which would have altered the election results.

Specific Areas of Concern vs. Reality

1. Mail-In / Absentee Ballots

•The Concern: Critics argue that mail-in voting is vulnerable to "ballot harvesting" (coercively collecting and submitting other people's ballots) or theft from mailboxes.

•The Reality: While experts agree mail-in voting is slightly more vulnerable than in-person voting, actual fraud remains miniscule. States use multiple layers of protection, including unique barcodes on ballot envelopes, bipartisan signature verification, and secure drop boxes. A 2020 analysis of states with universal mail-in voting (Colorado, Oregon, Washington) flagged only 372 possible cases of double voting or deceased voting out of 14.6 million ballots cast.

2. Noncitizen Voting

•The Concern: Opponents of current voting laws worry that millions of noncitizens are registering and voting in U.S. elections, particularly through automatic registration systems like the DMV.

•The Reality: Under federal law, it is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, carrying severe penalties including deportation. Audits show that while administrative errors sometimes mistakenly add noncitizens to voter registration rolls, actual voting by noncitizens is incredibly rare. For example, after a software error in New Jersey temporarily registered some noncitizens, officials confirmed that fewer than 400 actually voted out of over 6 million registered voters. A Georgia audit spanning 25 years found that no potential noncitizens had been allowed to register.

3. In-Person Voter Impersonation

•The Concern: The idea that individuals show up at polling places pretending to be someone else to cast an illegal vote.

•The Reality: This is the rarest form of voter fraud. The Brennan Center for Justice analyzed the Heritage Foundation’s database and found that over several decades and billions of votes cast, only 10 cases of in-person voter impersonation were documented. A person is statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to attempt in-person voter impersonation.

The Two Perspectives on the Debate

Because the physical data shows that voter fraud is rare, the political debate is less about the existence of widespread fraud and more about how to run elections:

The "Election Integrity" Perspective

Proponents of stricter voting laws (such as requiring government-issued photo IDs, restricting mail-in ballot drop boxes, and purging inactive voters from registration rolls) argue that any amount of fraud is unacceptable. They believe that:

•Even if fraud doesn't flip a national election, it can impact close local elections.

•Lax rules undermine public confidence in democratic institutions.

•Common-sense security measures (like showing an ID) are minor inconveniences that ensure the system is secure and trustworthy.

The "Voting Access" Perspective

Opponents of these stricter measures argue that the threat of voter fraud is exaggerated to justify voter suppression. They argue that:

•Strict ID laws, limits on mail-in voting, and reduced polling hours disproportionately affect low-income, minority, student, and elderly voters who may lack the resources or documentation to comply.

•Systemic protections—such as paper trails (which exist for approximately 98% of votes), pre-election equipment testing, and bipartisan post-election audits—are already highly effective at keeping elections secure.

•Crafting restrictive laws to address a nearly non-existent problem causes far more harm by disenfranchising eligible voters than it does good by stopping fraud.

Citations (9)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Based on comprehensive research, academic studies, and investigations by government and nonpartisan groups, voter fraud is exceptionally rare in the United States.”
evidence, reference entry, points to no. Claim: Voter fraud is exceptionally rare in the United States, per research and investigations.
2sciline.orgNonprofits and think tanks
sciline.org
Backs: “Based on comprehensive research, academic studies, and investigations by government and nonpartisan groups, voter fraud is exceptionally rare in the United States.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: Voter fraud is exceptionally rare in the United States, per research and investigations.
3ballotpedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.89
ballotpedia.org
Backs: “While isolated incidents do occur and are prosecuted, there is no evidence of widespread or systemic voter fraud on a scale that could alter the outcome of a state or national election.”
evidence, reference entry, points to no. Claim: Isolated incidents of voter fraud do occur and are prosecuted.
4brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “While isolated incidents do occur and are prosecuted, there is no evidence of widespread or systemic voter fraud on a scale that could alter the outcome of a state or national election.”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: No evidence of widespread or systemic voter fraud large enough to alter state or national election outcomes.
5americanbar.orgNonprofits and think tanks
americanbar.org
Backs: “The discussion generally centers around two competing concerns: maintaining election security (integrity) versus maximizing voter participation (access).”
background, article, neutral. Claim: Debate centers on election security versus maximizing voter participation.
6brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “The discussion generally centers around two competing concerns: maintaining election security (integrity) versus maximizing voter participation (access).”
background, article, neutral. Claim: Debate centers on election security versus maximizing voter participation.
7heritage.orgNonprofits and think tanks
heritage.org
Backs: “The Heritage Foundation (Conservative Think Tank): Heritage maintains a database tracking proven cases of election fraud to highlight vulnerabilities.”
statistic, data page, points to no. Claim: Heritage maintains a database of proven election fraud cases, roughly 1,465 over 44 years.
8brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “The Brennan Center for Justice analyzed the Heritage Foundation’s database and found that over several decades and billions of votes cast, only 10 cases of in-person voter impersonation were documented. A person is statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to attempt in-person voter impersonation.”
statistic, article, points to no. Claim: Brennan Center found only 10 documented cases of in-person voter impersonation in Heritage's database.
9brennancenter.orgNonprofits and think tanks
brennancenter.org
Backs: “A person is statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to attempt in-person voter impersonation.”
statistic, article, points to no. Claim: A person is statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to attempt in-person voter impersonation.