Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which states had the most voter fraud allegations in the 2024 election?
Executive Summary
The evidence in the provided materials shows no single definitive roster of “most” voter fraud allegations by state in 2024, but recurring attention centers on Texas, Georgia, and several battleground states where challenges, removals, and lawsuits were concentrated. Reporting and agency actions described in the documents highlight Texas’ probe into alleged noncitizen votes, large-scale voter challenges in Georgia, and broad litigation activity across dozens of states, reflecting a mix of targeted enforcement, mass challenges, and partisan legal strategies rather than a clear, centralized pattern of proven fraud [1] [2] [3].
1. Why one headline—Texas investigations—kept recurring and what it actually says
Texas attracted sharp scrutiny because state officials publicly announced investigations into alleged illegal voting by noncitizens, with the Texas Attorney General opening probes into 33 named possible noncitizen voters in the 2024 general election. Those announcements produced headlines implying large-scale illegal voting, but the underlying documents only document investigations and alleged matches, not adjudicated findings of criminal fraud, and the numbers remain far smaller than the total electorate. The Texas actions reflect state-level enforcement and political emphasis on noncitizen voting, with concrete removals reported elsewhere but investigations still ongoing in many cases [1] [4].
2. Georgia’s massive voter challenges: volume without removals
Georgia stands out for the scale of challenges rather than confirmed fraud: more than 63,000 voters were challenged after July 1, yet removals were minimal—about 1% of those challenges resulted in removal. County-by-county dismissals dominated, which indicates that while the state saw intense scrutiny and procedural complaints, the actual enforcement yield was small. This pattern suggests a strategy focused on mass challenges that can produce administrative burden and public questioning of legitimacy, even where substantiated removals are rare [2].
3. A nationwide litigation campaign that complicates the fraud narrative
The Republican National Committee and allied Republicans filed suits in roughly two dozen states on issues from voter rolls to mail balloting, and Ballotpedia tracked over 130 election-related lawsuits across 33 states in 2024. This litigation wave shows that contested claims about voting processes were dispersed geographically and heavily legalistic, with litigation used as a tool to seek changes, information, or delays. The legal activity underscores that much of the 2024 “allegations” story unfolded in court dockets and challenges rather than in criminal convictions or uniform findings of fraud [5] [3].
4. Removals of purported noncitizens varied by state and scale
Several states reported removals or purges tied to questions of citizenship: Texas and Virginia each reported thousands removed (Texas reported 6,500, Virginia 6,303), Alabama identified 3,251, Louisiana issued directives to address noncitizen voting and Ohio removed 597. These figures reflect state-level administrative actions to clean rolls, but the numbers differ widely across states, and the context—whether based on updated data matches, hearings, or litigation—varies. Removal counts indicate administrative responses, not necessarily criminal prosecutions or broader systemic fraud [4].
5. Fact-checks and debunking shifted the public focus over time
PolitiFact and other fact-checking efforts documented that most high-profile election-fraud claims in 2024 originated from right-leaning actors and focused on vote counting, mail ballots, and machines, with many claims failing verification. Fact-checking activity increased after contested results, indicating that allegations outpaced substantiated evidence, and that misinformation dynamics shaped the perception of where and how fraud allegedly occurred. This trend suggests an environment where allegations circulated widely even as verification lagged or contradicted those claims [6].
6. Different actors and agendas shaped where allegations appeared
The materials show competing objectives: state attorneys general and election officials pursued enforcement and roll cleanups; the Republican National Committee pursued litigation across many states; and political actors pushed legislative or rhetorical responses to noncitizen voting. These disparate approaches created overlapping but distinct claim streams—administrative purges, mass challenges, and partisan lawsuits—that inflamed public debate. Each actor’s agenda—law enforcement, partisan litigation, or advocacy—shaped which states saw the most visible allegations [1] [5] [7].
7. What the documents don’t prove—and why that matters
The provided sources document investigations, lawsuits, challenges, and removals, but they do not establish a rank-ordered list of states with confirmed, proven voter fraud incidents in 2024. Many allegations remained administrative or legal rather than criminally adjudicated, and large numbers of challenges produced few removals. The absence of consolidated, adjudicated fraud tallies in these sources means any claim that a particular state “had the most voter fraud” would overstate what the evidence shows [8] [3].
8. Bottom line: allegations clustered but convictions did not
In sum, allegations and enforcement activity clustered in Texas, Georgia, and several battleground states, driven by high-profile investigations, mass voter challenges, and widespread litigation. Yet the materials emphasize investigations and procedural actions rather than conclusive proof of systemic fraud; removals and legal filings outnumber confirmed criminal convictions in the provided records. Readers should treat counts of challenges, removals, or investigations as distinct metrics—each reflecting different processes and often different agendas—rather than interchangeable proof of widespread fraudulent voting [1] [2] [3].