In the 2020 election what states had the most fraudulent voting?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The best contemporaneous reporting and data reviews find no state in 2020 with widespread or outcome‑changing voter fraud; investigators and fact‑checks instead identified a tiny number of isolated incidents scattered across multiple states (for example, fewer than 475 potential cases across six battleground states examined by the AP) [1][2]. Aggregated trackers and academic reviews conclude the portion of ballots affected was vanishingly small and did not alter the result in any state [3][4].
1. What the major reviews actually found: tiny numbers, no decisive state
A multipronged review of post‑2020 reporting shows researchers and news organizations found only a few hundred potential fraud cases in the states most alleged to have been corrupted, a total that is orders of magnitude too small to change state outcomes; the Associated Press found fewer than 475 potential instances across six contested states, and independent scholars found no statistical evidence of systematic manipulation in counties spotlighted by litigants [1][2][4].
2. State‑level tallies cited by advocates and what they mean
Public trackers compiled by advocacy groups and think tanks list individual cases—Heritage’s database lists pockets of proven offenses and convictions, and some state summaries cite small counts (for example, Heritage and media reporting note a few dozen documented cases in Arizona and decades‑long small totals in Pennsylvania) —but those enumerations still represent isolated incidents amid tens of millions of ballots, not broad schemes that flipped state tallies [5][6][3].
3. Battlegrounds singled out and how scrutiny played out
States most frequently alleged in post‑election claims—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada—were exhaustively litigated and audited; courts repeatedly rejected broad fraud claims for lack of credible evidence, and audits and canvasses turned up only small numbers of irregularities or potential crimes that would not change the electoral outcome [7][2][1].
4. Examples from official state work: prosecutions and referrals, but no statewide theft
Some state election boards and prosecutors pursued specific allegations—Georgia’s board referred several cases (including isolated felon or noncitizen voting and one misplaced‑ballot incident) for prosecution, and other states documented prosecutions or administrative referrals—but officials said these were limited matters that did not change the certified results [8][3].
5. The scholarly view: statistical claims don’t hold up
Peer‑reviewed analysis and academic responses to statistical allegations about 2020 conclude that the headline statistical claims—claims of flipped vote counts, anomalous turnout spikes, or coordinated manipulation in key counties—do not survive careful testing; researchers specifically rebutted claims that counties like Fulton (GA) or Allegheny (PA) were centers of massive absentee ballot fraud [4].
6. Counterclaims and their provenance: why some narratives persist
A small ecosystem of commentators and some websites assert broader wrongdoing and compile alternative tallies, but mainstream fact‑checks and court opinions found many of those claims relied on miscoded precinct data, out‑of‑date registration figures, hearsay or methodological errors; the persistence of those narratives has driven new laws and political fights, even though the underlying evidence remains weak [9][10][11].
7. Bottom line: no state “had the most fraudulent voting” in a way that affected 2020’s result
Synthesis of the reporting shows that no single state can be credibly identified as having “the most fraudulent voting” in 2020 in the sense of widespread, coordinated fraud that altered outcomes; instead, validated or plausible instances were sparse, dispersed, and insufficient to flip any state’s result, according to comprehensive journalistic investigations, academic reviews and court findings [1][4][3].