What are the possible penalties if Tyler Boyer is convicted of the alleged offenses?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
There is significant name confusion in the reporting: some sources describe Tyler Bowyer (with a “w”), a Turning Point–linked “fake elector” indicted in the post‑2020 election schemes, while other legal records concern a different Tyler Boyer with unrelated criminal litigation — and the penalties depend entirely on which charges and jurisdiction apply (state felony statutes vary). Reporting confirms state felony exposure for fake‑elector participants in at least one jurisdiction and shows longstanding, much higher enhanced‑sentence disputes in an earlier Boyer criminal appeal, but public sources do not provide a single, authoritative charging document tying a single “Tyler Boyer” to a specific penalty schedule [1] [2] [3].
1. The immediate, clearly documented exposure for “fake electors” — state felony penalties
At least one reporting strand makes clear that alleged participants in the fake‑elector scheme face state criminal exposure: Wisconsin charged alleged co‑conspirators with “uttering a genuine forged writing,” a Class H felony that the state says can carry up to six years’ imprisonment and a fine up to $10,000 [1]. Multiple outlets list an Arizona figure named Tyler Bowyer among indicted fake electors, and Arizona prosecutors have pursued state indictments against the group for signing documents claiming Trump won states he did not [2] [4]. Those state prosecutions are not affected by a presidential federal pardon, which does not bar state charges — an issue emphasized by multiple reports [1] [5].
2. What that likely means if convicted on typical state counts
For a conviction on forgery/uttering or similar state election‑fraud statutes — the charges public reporting ties to the fake‑elector scheme — defendants typically face the statutory maximums of the charging state (for Wisconsin’s Class H felony, up to six years and $10,000 fine is cited) and any additional counts could stack into consecutive or concurrent sentences depending on plea negotiations and judicial discretion [1]. The exact exposure for the Arizona indictments reported is not listed in the available summaries, so precise Arizona statutory maxima and enhancements cannot be confirmed from these sources [2] [4].
3. A different “Tyler Boyer” legal record shows far higher, enhanced‑sentence disputes — not necessarily related
Court opinions and case law referencing “Tyler Boyer” show prior criminal appeals about mandatory enhanced sentences for repeat offender statutes that alleged exposure to two 25‑year third‑time‑offender terms (a claimed 50‑year effective minimum) before the appeals court disallowed double enhancement — a separate matter from the fake‑elector coverage and demonstrating that some persons named Tyler Boyer have faced very different, high‑stakes penalties in other contexts [3]. Those legal documents concern drug‑offense sentencing disputes and suppression motions from New Hampshire cases, not election‑fraud indictments tied to the 2020 fake‑elector scheme, and therefore cannot be assumed to reflect penalties for the election matters [6] [7].
4. Ambiguities in reporting and the risk of conflation
Multiple sources conflate spellings (Bowyer vs. Boyer) and mix political reporting, legal records, and local news, so public reporting risks misidentifying which Tyler — and which charges — are at issue [1] [2] [3]. Partisan outlets and hyperlocal pages may emphasize political narratives (pardons, organizational ties, or personnel controversies) that shift focus away from statutory penalties; the available summaries reliably document state felony exposure for fake‑elector participants in at least one state but do not provide a unified charging list with penalties for a single named individual across jurisdictions [1] [5] [4].
5. Bottom line: concrete possibilities and limits of the public record
If the person in question is one of the indicted fake electors, the demonstrable possible penalties include state felony sentences such as Wisconsin’s Class H felony exposure (up to six years in prison and up to $10,000 fine), with other states’ statutes potentially imposing different maxima and the possibility of multiple counts or enhancements depending on the indictment language and plea outcomes [1] [2]. If the person in question is the Tyler Boyer referenced in earlier criminal appeals, prior litigation shows much larger disputed enhanced sentences under repeat‑offender statutes, but those relate to separate drug‑offense proceedings and cannot be transposed onto the election‑fraud reporting without further primary charging documents [3] [6]. Available sources do not supply a single, definitive charging document listing exact counts and statutory penalties for one individual named “Tyler Boyer,” so any precise sentencing forecast requires the indictment or information from the prosecuting jurisdiction.