The Myth of Voter fraud

By Justin Levitt August 6


Voter ID laws are back in the news once again, with two new opinions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court late last week dealing with the state's ID requirement, which would allow people to vote only if they provide certain forms of government-issued ID. The Court made some minor changes to the law but otherwise upheld it. However, the ID requirement is still on hold pending a federal lawsuit.
Part of this litigation — and any rational debate about the issue generally — hinges on two things: costs and benefits.  The costs of these sorts of laws vary, because the laws themselves differ from state to state (some are far more burdensome than others). The ostensible benefits, though, are all the same. And in addressing these purported benefits, the Wisconsin Supreme Court blew it.  Twice.
First, the court cited the idea that ID laws could enhance public confidence--that is, in theory, the laws might make us feel better about elections in that they might provide some security theater. It turns out, though, that this effect is hard to spot. People in states with more restrictive ID laws don’t generally feel better about their elections than people in more permissive states. People who think elections are being stolen, and people who think they’re not, each hold on to that opinion no matter what the governing ID rules in their area. The factor that really influences whether people think the elections are fair? Whether their preferred candidates win.
Second, the court said that ID laws can help stop fraud. It then cited an example of recent fraud … that ID laws aren’t designed to stop. Specifically, it mentioned a case in which a supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including "registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn't live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing false information to election officials," according to an account by Talking Points Memo. Wisconsin's ID law would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations.

This sort of misdirection is pretty common, actually. Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop.
Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens.
I’ve been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I’ve been following reports wherever they crop up.


To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.


So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.
To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.
Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I’d bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.


In just four states that have held just a few elections under the harshest ID laws, more than 3,000 votes (in general elections alone) have reportedly been affirmatively rejected for lack of ID. (That doesn’t include voters without ID who didn’t show up, or recordkeeping mistakes by officials.)  Some of those 3,000 may have been fraudulent ballots.  But how many legitimate voters have already been turned away?

1. May 2014: Ben Hodzic allegedly voted at the polls in the name of his brother in the Catskill School District Board of Education election in Catskill, NY.
2. Nov. 2013: Mark Atlas allegedly voted at the polls in the name of someone else in the municipal election in Worcester, MA.
3. Sep. 2013: At least four, and possibly 20-24, Hasidic voters in the South Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY, allegedly attempted to vote at the polls under others’ names in the municipal primary elections for New York City.
4. Mar. 2013: Kristina Bentrim went to vote at the polls in the Cedar Rapids, IA, special election on a gambling referendum, and was allegedly told that someone had voted in her name.  It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
5. Nov. 2012: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Angela Cooney in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is an Angela Cooney listed as dying 4 years earlier. It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
6. Nov. 2012: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Evan Dixon in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is an Evan Dixon listed as dying 11 years earlier. It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
7. Nov. 2012: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Alejandro Guerrero in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is an Alejandro Guerrero listed as dying 5 years earlier.  It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
8. 2012: According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, one allegation of impersonation fraud in 2012 was sufficiently credible to refer to the local district attorney.  It is not clear whether the alleged fraud was in-person, or if follow-up established whether fraud did or did not likely occur.
9. June 2011: Hazel Brionne Woodard apparently arranged for her son Mark James Jr. to vote at the polls in the name of his father, Mark James Sr., in the municipal runoff elections in Tarrant County, TX.
10. Nov. 2010: Four ballots may have been cast in the general election in South Carolina in the name of voters who had previously died (Ed Louis Johnson, Elbert R. Thompson, Ruth Middleton, and James L. Warnock); election and law enforcement officials had insufficient information to come to a final conclusion, including two pollbook pages that were unavailable. (Law enforcement agents believe that the ballot of Elbert R. Thompson may have been confused  with that of his son, Elbert Thompson.) Another 203 allegations of deceased voters in the same election were revealed to be either clerical error or coincidence.
11. May 2009: Lorenzo Antonio Almanza, Jr., after voting himself, apparently cast a ballot at the polls in the name of his incarcerated brother, Orlando Almanza, in the 2009 election for the Progreso Independent School District Board, TX. (His mother, Reyna Almanza, vouched for him, and was separately convicted.)
12. Nov. 2008: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Forrest Downie in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is a Forrest Downie listed as dying 3 years earlier. It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
13. Nov. 2008: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Scott Hagloch in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is a Scott Hagloch listed as dying 2 years earlier.  It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
14. Mar. 2008: Jack Carol Crowder III allegedly impersonated his father (Jack Carol Crowder), using his father’s voter registration card at the polls in the March 2008 presidential primary election in Baytown, TX.
15. Aug. 2007: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the statewide primary in Hattiesburg, MS, in the name of James E. Barnes, who died in 2006.  This may (or may not) have been the result of clerical error confusing the man with his son, James W. Barnes; it is not clear whether the pollbooks were reviewed to determine whether fraud or clerical error was the cause.
16. Aug. 2007: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the statewide primary in Hattiesburg, MS, in the name of Stanley Dwayne Echols, who was at the hospital and did not vote.  It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
17. June 2007: The two contending city council candidates in a municipal runoff election in Hoboken, NJ, both reported instances in the election in which someone went to the polls and found out that someone else had voted in their place. It is not clear how many instances there were, or how the candidates learned of them. It is also not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the records of voting represented impersonated signatures or clerical errors.
18. 2007: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in a municipal budget referendum in Stonington, CT, in the name of Jane M. Drury, who died in 2000. It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
19. Nov. 2004: Rosalie B. Simpson died in August 2004, but a vote was apparently recorded at the polls in her name in the general election in Seattle, WA. It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
20. Nov. 2004: Frank Sanchez, in Albuquerque, NM, was told that someone had signed on the line for his name in the pollbook during the general election.  It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
21. Nov. 2004: Someone apparently signed on the pollbook line for Rose-Mary G. McGee, in Albuquerque, NM, during the general election.
22. Nov. 2004: Dwight Adkins, in Albuquerque, NM, was told that someone had signed on the line for his name in the pollbook during the general election.  It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
23. Nov. 2004: Three people at the polls in Westchester County, NY, were given provisional ballots (in New York, “affidavit ballots”) in the general election because someone had allegedly signed the poll books in their place. It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the records of voting represented impersonated signatures or clerical errors.
24. Nov. 2004: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the general election in Milwaukee, WI, in the name of an individual who had died several years earlier. It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the records of voting represented impersonated signatures or clerical errors.
25. 2004: According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, one allegation of impersonation fraud in 2004 was sufficiently credible to refer to the local district attorney.  It is not clear whether the alleged fraud was in-person, or if follow-up established whether fraud did or did not likely occur.
26. Jan. 2004: Mark Lacasse apparently voted at the polls in the presidential primary in Londonderry, NH, in the name of his father, who was away on business at the time.
27. Nov. 2002: Shasta Nicole Crayton apparently voted in her sister’s name at the polls in the general election in Dadeville, AL.
28. In several municipal, primary, and general elections in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011, votes were cast in-person in Philadephia, PA, by an individual named Joseph Cheeseboro and by an individual named Joseph J. Cheeseborough. There is apparently some doubt about where one or both names represent real identities.
29. In elections from October 2008 through June 2011, 44 individuals with names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers matching the information of individuals listed as incarcerated were recorded as having cast ballots in person in Michigan. It is not clear whether records were further investigated to determine whether the matches represent fraudulent votes or clerical errors in either the incarceration records or the voting records.
30. In elections from October 2008 through June 2011, 145 individuals with names, dates of birth, and addresses matching the information of individuals listed as deceased were recorded as having cast ballots in person in Michigan. It is not clear whether records were further investigated to determine whether the matches represent fraudulent votes or clerical errors in either the death records or the voting records.
31. According to Texas Director of Elections Keith Ingram, the names, birth dates, and Social Security numbers of four “recent” voters allegedly matched the corresponding information on earlier death certificates, indicating that the votes were cast after the individuals’ deaths.  It is not clear at which elections these votes were cast, or how many, if any, of these votes were cast at the polls (rather than absentee). It is also not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.