About the Election Fraud Map

The Election Fraud Map presents a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. Each and every one of the cases in this database represents an instance in which a public official, usually a prosecutor, thought it serious enough to act upon. And each and every one ended in a finding that the individual had engaged in wrongdoing in connection with an election hoping to affect its outcome—or that the results of an election were sufficiently in question and had to be overturned. This map is not an exhaustive or comprehensive database. This map is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed across the U.S.

It is important to remember that every fraudulent voter registration can result in a fraudulent vote if it is not detected before an election. It could also affect ballot and candidate qualifying petitions that require voter signatures.

Every fraudulent vote that is cast invalidates the vote of an eligible voter, effectively disenfranchising that voter. In addition to diluting the votes of legitimate voters, instances of fraud can alter—and have altered—the outcome of close elections. There may be many close elections in this country.

Reforms intended to ensure election integrity do not disenfranchise voters and, in fact, protect their right to vote and their confidence in the fairness and integrity of election outcomes no matter who wins.

Preventing, deterring, and prosecuting election fraud is essential to protecting the integrity of the voting process.

There are people who claim that election fraud is massive, and those who claim it is exceedingly rare or doesn’t occur at all. But as the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, “flagrant examples of such fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…[that] demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

The problem is that nobody really knows the extent of election fraud. While we are not making any definitive claims about the extent of election fraud in the United States, we are confident in saying that there are far too many vulnerabilities in the current system. The important thing is that people must have trust in the outcome, which is difficult to do, in large part, because of the current vulnerabilities.

This map is not an exhaustive or comprehensive database of all election fraud in the 50 states. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances or allegations of election fraud, some of which may be meritorious, some not, that are not investigated or prosecuted. Because of vulnerabilities that exist in state election laws, election fraud is relatively easy to commit and difficult to detect after the fact. Moreover, some public officials appear to be unconcerned about election fraud and fail to pursue cases that are reported to them. It is a general truism that you don’t find what you don’t look for.

This map is intended to highlight cases of proven fraud and the many ways in which fraud has been committed across the U.S. This fraud, committed by Democrats, Republicans, and independents, happened because of vulnerabilities in the states’ election laws.

Winning elections leads to political power and the incentives to take advantage of security vulnerabilities are great, so it is important that states take reasonable, commonsense steps to make it hard to cheat, while making it easy for legitimate voters to vote.

Americans deserve to have an electoral process that they can trust.

Click here for more resources on election integrity.

Contributors

It is only through the contributions of a great many people that a publication like the Election Fraud Map is possible. Among them, a few special contributors have that extra talent, work ethic, and willingness to go the extra mile that make the Map a remarkable and uniquely special undertaking.

Heritage Experts

Kevin Roberts, PhD, is President of The Heritage Foundation.

John G. Malcolm is Vice President of the Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Edwin J. Meese Center III for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Katie Blair is a Senior Program Coordinator in the Meese Center.

Jessica Reinsch is Deputy Director of Programs in the Meese Center.

Zack Smith is a Legal Fellow in the Meese Center.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow in the Meese Center.

Design and Development

John Fleming is the Manager of Data Graphics Services for Policy Publications at The Heritage Foundation.

Jay Simon is the Manager of Web Development and Print Production for Policy Publications.