Did trump try to use fake electors in the 2020 election
Executive summary
Donald Trump and close associates organized and encouraged rival slates of presidential electors in seven battleground states after the 2020 election—documents, testimony, and federal and state indictments characterize those slates as “fake” or “fraudulent” and treat the effort as part of a larger scheme to overturn the election [1] [2] [3]. Defenders argue the slates were “contingent” or a lawful preservation of potential remedies, but prosecutors and investigators have charged participants and included the scheme in indictments against Trump and aides [4] [5] [6].
1. The factual core: rival slates were assembled in seven states
After the election, groups of Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin convened and signed certificates claiming to be the duly appointed electors for Trump despite state certifications for Biden; the House January 6 report concluded those groups were never actual electors and their December 14 votes were not valid [7] [2]. Investigators have traced a coordinated effort—templates and instructions circulated by attorneys and operatives—for producing and submitting those alternate certificates [8] [3].
2. Legal treatment: prosecutors called it part of a criminal scheme and charged participants
Federal prosecutors included the false-elector conduct among the allegations in the special counsel’s indictment of Trump, and multiple state and federal jurisdictions have brought or pursued charges against electors and organizers; several fake electors and advisers face criminal indictments or civil suits, and trials and arraignments have been scheduled in states like Arizona and Michigan [3] [5] [6]. Some jurisdictions have already charged or settled with individuals from the slates, while other investigations remain active or have produced mixed prosecutorial outcomes [6] [8] [9].
3. Numbers, coordination, and origin: scope documented by multiple sources
Reporting and advocacy groups place the total number of alternate signers at roughly 84 across the seven states, and timelines and communications show coordination by Trump allies—templates from attorneys, campaign operatives looped in, and requests routed through party officials—to prepare paperwork intended to be sent to Congress and the vice president on January 6 [6] [8] [3]. The select committee and subsequent reporting identified Wisconsin as a starting point for the operation and noted texts and emails showing participants describing their efforts as accomplishing a desired outcome [8] [2].
4. The defense: contingent electors, legal theory, and political framing
Supporters and some commentators argue the alternate slates were “contingent” electors intended to preserve legal arguments and were not a criminal plot; this view appears in conservative commentary and has been invoked in courtroom and public-defense strategies [4]. Some local prosecutors have also declined to bring charges or have said intent to defraud may be difficult to prove, recommending legislative fixes instead—an outcome that reflects disagreement over legal theory and prosecutorial discretion [9].
5. What the record shows and what remains disputed
Primary-source records, grand-jury subpoenas, the Jan. 6 committee report and the special counsel’s filings present a detailed documentary and testimonial record that Trump’s allies organized false electoral certificates and attempted to submit them as part of a broader plan to disrupt certification [2] [3] [5]; conversely, defenders dispute the label “fake” and emphasize contingency and legal preservation arguments [4]. Available reporting confirms the factual occurrence of alternate slates, substantial coordination, and criminal charges in multiple jurisdictions, but assessing individual criminal intent and final legal outcomes remains a matter for courts and official investigations [6] [10].