Which election alleged 1.4 million ghost votes and who made the claim?

1. The most‑cited U.S. “ghost voter” figure: Judicial Watch’s 1.8 million

The clearest example in the supplied reporting ties a high‑number “ghost voter” claim to Judicial Watch, which circulated an October 2020 spreadsheet that was reported as showing about 1.8 million registered voters in counties that exceeded the citizen voting‑age population; news outlets and fact‑checkers described the claim as misleading because of methodology and interpretation problems ^[1].

2. Where “1.4 million” fits — not found in current reporting

Available sources do not mention an exact claim of “1.4 million ghost votes” or identify a named individual or group who made that specific 1.4 million assertion. The documents supplied instead document other round numbers circulating after U.S. elections (1.8 million, 20 million, 1.2 million rejected mail ballots) and link them to different actors and analytical errors ^{[1] [4] [2] [3]}.

3. Common sources of high‑number claims and how experts respond

Fact‑checkers and analysts warn that numeric claims—whether about millions of “ghost voters” or “missing” votes—often arise from comparing mismatched datasets, incomplete tallies, or misunderstandings of registration vs. eligible population. Snopes reviewed the Judicial Watch spreadsheet and noted experts cautioned the figures were misleading; FactCheck.org and WIRED documented viral posts claiming tens of millions missing after the 2024 vote count lag but explained the gap was largely due to not‑yet‑counted ballots ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Alternate legitimate figures in the sources and their meaning

The supplied material includes other concrete election counts that are factual and sourced: about 1.2 million mail ballots were rejected in a recent U.S. cycle, mainly for signature issues — a distinct administrative reality from “ghost votes” and a potential flashpoint for dispute over signature verification procedures ^[4]. The John Locke Foundation found a much smaller number of unverified same‑day registrations in one review of the 2020 election, which the author characterized as “ghost voters” in a narrow administrative sense — again far below millions ^[5].

5. Why high totals are persuasive but often incorrect

High totals like “1.8 million” or alleged tens‑of‑millions of missing votes travel quickly because they are easy to cite and sound alarming; they frequently rest on comparing active voter rolls to dated population estimates or on premature snapshots of vote counts. Analysts and courts require precise chain‑of‑custody, matched datasets, and validated procedures before treating such numbers as evidence of fraud; multiple fact‑checks in the supplied material reached that conclusion ^{[1] [2] [3] [6]}.

6. What to look for if you see “1.4 million” repeated elsewhere

If you encounter a claim that “1.4 million ghost votes” were cast, demand the underlying data: who compiled it, what registers and population measures were compared, what dates and jurisdictions are included, and whether election officials or independent auditors corroborate it. The supplied sources show that rigorous review often reduces alarming totals substantially or identifies methodological errors ^{[1] [5] [4]}.

Limitations and closing note: the sources provided do not document an originator or a published claim using the precise figure “1.4 million ghost votes”; therefore this report cannot attribute that exact phrase to any person or group in current reporting (not found in current reporting). The supplied materials do, however, document related large‑number claims, identify their common origins (e.g., Judicial Watch’s 1.8 million assertion), and show expert and fact‑checker pushback when methodology or timing produce misleading conclusions ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.