What specific cases of noncitizen voting were prosecuted after the 2024 election, and what were the outcomes?
Executive summary
After the 2024 election, state officials in several states referred, flagged or opened investigations into dozens to thousands of possible noncitizen registrations or votes, but reporting shows few if any confirmed, prosecuted and convicted cases that changed outcomes; most actions were referrals or reviews rather than completed criminal prosecutions [1] [2] [3].
1. Michigan: referrals, not headline convictions
Michigan’s formal, published review matched DMV records to the state’s voter file and identified 15 people who appeared to be non‑U.S. citizens who cast a ballot in the 2024 general election; the state referred 13 of those cases to the Michigan Attorney General for potential criminal charges, with one apparent noncitizen deceased and one case still under investigation at the state’s Office of Investigative Services [1].
2. Texas: investigations opened after database access
Texas officials, having gained access to a federal verification database, identified and referred dozens of possible noncitizen voters to the state attorney general; Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson announced 33 “potential noncitizens” referred to Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Paxton’s office framed the investigations as part of broader election‑integrity work even as his office also publicized unrelated indictments for vote‑harvesting in Frio County [2] [4].
3. Ohio and other large referral counts that did not equate to convictions
Republican officials in Ohio publicly reported hundreds of cases referred for “further review and potential prosecution” — figures cited include 138 apparent noncitizens found to have voted and 459 who registered but did not vote in an earlier review, and other reports referenced totals near 597 referrals — but these announcements described referrals to prosecutors or administrative review, not completed criminal convictions [5] [6].
4. Local audits and the limits of automated flagging tools
Local election officials who used federal verification tools frequently reported that the tools flagged names that turned out to be errors; for example, Charlotte County, Florida, had 15 names flagged from a sample of 176,000 uploaded names and removed at least three that were mistakenly added to the rolls, and many jurisdictions noted that automated matches can falsely identify citizens as noncitizens [3].
5. Examples of small confirmed counts and administrative causes
Some states’ post‑election reviews attributed the small number of confirmed noncitizen ballots to clerical mistakes in registration systems: Oregon’s Motor Voter error led to 1,822 people mistakenly added to rolls and was linked to 38 noncitizen votes in 2024 out of more than 2.3 million ballots cast, and Michigan emphasized the rarity of confirmed cases — 15 out of more than 5.7 million ballots — as a fraction too small to affect outcomes [2] [1].
6. What prosecutions actually look like in the available reporting
The reporting provided documents numerous referrals and open probes but contains little evidence of widespread prosecutions resulting in convictions tied specifically to noncitizen voting after the 2024 election; major narratives from watchdogs and research groups stress that these instances are vanishingly rare and that many leads stem from paperwork errors or mismatches rather than organized schemes [7] [8] [9].
7. Broader context and competing narratives
Advocacy groups and nonpartisan research caution against treating referrals and tool flags as proof of large‑scale fraud — the Bipartisan Policy Center, Brennan Center and Migration Policy Institute materials note that historically confirmed noncitizen voting is extremely rare and that databases and audits can create false positives — while some state Republican officials have used referrals to argue for more aggressive verification and prosecutions [7] [10] [11].
8. Conclusion and reporting limits
Based on the sources reviewed, the post‑2024 landscape is characterized by official reviews, referrals to prosecutors (Michigan: 13 referrals; Texas: 33 referred for investigation; Ohio: hundreds referred for review), some small confirmed administrative errors (Oregon, Michigan, Iowa audits), and a lack in these sources of widely reported, numerous convictions that substantively altered election results; the available reporting documents investigations and referrals more than completed criminal outcomes [1] [4] [5] [2] [9]. This account is limited to the provided reporting and does not assert prosecution outcomes where those sources do not report them.