Where may I find voter fraud prosecutions?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
If you want databases of prosecutions, the Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Map compiles “proven instances” and was updated July 28, 2025; it lists hundreds of cases and claims every entry ended with a finding of wrongdoing [1]. Federal oversight and prosecutions are handled by multiple DOJ components — Civil Rights Division, Criminal Division, National Security Division, and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices — which the Justice Department says coordinate election-fraud enforcement [2]. Independent analysts and researchers say instances are vanishingly rare relative to ballots cast and that many referrals never become convictions [3] [4].
1. Where to find lists of prosecuted cases — start with Heritage’s map
The most direct publicly searchable compilation of alleged and adjudicated voter-fraud cases is the Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Map and its categories pages, which present a “sampling of recent proven instances” and claim that each listed case ended in a finding of wrongdoing; the database was last updated July 28, 2025 [1] [5]. Use that map to locate cases by state, year, and category; Heritage’s summary language states every case “ended in a finding that the individual engaged in wrongdoing in an election” [1].
2. Federal prosecutions: multiple DOJ units, local U.S. attorneys do the work
The Department of Justice describes its election-related enforcement as a distributed effort: the Civil Rights Division, Criminal Division, National Security Division (NSD) and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices all play roles in investigating and prosecuting matters that affect election security, including foreign interference and criminal activity tied to voting [2]. For federal-level prosecutions or cases involving foreign influence, check DOJ press releases and the NSD / Criminal Division announcements [2].
3. State-level prosecutions: look to state attorneys general and local prosecutors
State and local prosecutors bring most election-crime charges; recent reporting documents state-specific efforts (for example Florida’s expanded authority to pursue alleged voter-fraud cases and prosecutions targeting ineligible voters) and shows how state law changes can shift who prosecutes and how aggressively [6]. The Brennan Center warns such state statutory changes and new prosecutorial units can politicize prosecutions [7] [6].
4. Numbers and context: prosecutions exist but are numerically tiny compared with ballots cast
Researchers and news organizations repeatedly find voter fraud is rare. NPR reported Ohio referred 630 cases to prosecutors “over the course of multiple elections” while noting fraud remains “exceedingly rare,” and Brookings and Newsweek analyses using Heritage data show that the number of proven cases across decades equals a microscopic share of ballots cast [3] [4] [8]. Brookings calculates the share of fraudulent votes found by Heritage to be about .0000845% and reports no ballot-fraud case in their review altered an election outcome [4].
5. Beware of selection, framing and political agendas in sources
Databases and policy plans are created with aims and audiences. Heritage’s map is the most-cited compilation of “proven” cases and is used by conservatives and some policymakers; other organizations, such as the Brennan Center and Brookings, treat that data as a baseline but emphasize rarity and caution about political misuse [1] [4] [9]. The Brennan Center warns Project 2025 and related proposals would expand prosecutions — potentially targeting election officials and pro-voter groups — and argues that repurposing old civil-rights law for prosecuting those who help people vote is legally and practically unsound [9] [10].
6. How to verify individual prosecutions and court outcomes
For any specific case you find in a database, verify through primary records: state court dockets, U.S. Attorney press releases and DOJ archives. The DOJ archive page lists the divisions that supervise election-related prosecutions and links to local U.S. Attorney offices; for federal cases and pleas look to DOJ and FBI notices [2] [11]. Heritage’s entries are a starting point but are characterized by some scholars and outlets as incomplete and selected; independent court records remain the definitive source [1] [4].
7. Competing perspectives on the broader picture
Conservative-leaning compilations like Heritage document many cases and urge more enforcement; analysts at Brookings, NPR and the Brennan Center accept that prosecutions occur but say they are extremely rare and caution against using prosecutions as a pretext to curtail voting access or politicize the Justice Department [1] [3] [4] [9]. The Brennan Center expressly frames Project 2025’s prosecutorial prescriptions as a threat to election officials and voting rights [9] [10].
Limitations: available sources do not mention a single centralized federal public database of all election prosecutions; instead, you must consult multiple sources (Heritage map, DOJ archives, state prosecutors’ records and news reports) and verify outcomes in court dockets [1] [2]. Use the Heritage map to find candidate cases, then confirm convictions, plea deals or dismissals through DOJ press releases and local court records [1] [2].