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.
What evidence exists of fake GOP or Democratic electors in the 2020 and 2024 elections?
Executive summary
Investigations and reporting document that “fake” or “alternate” electors were organized in seven battleground states after the 2020 election and that dozens of people who signed or helped produce those certificates have faced state- and federal-level scrutiny, indictments or civil suits (e.g., 84 purported electors across seven states; prosecutions in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and others) [1] [2]. Outcomes vary: some defendants were charged or pleaded not guilty and prosecutions remain active, some charges were dismissed in Michigan and Nevada litigation has had venue fights and revival at the state supreme court level [3] [4] [5].
1. What happened in 2020: coordinated alternate electors in seven states
In December 2020 groups of Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin signed and in some cases submitted certificates claiming Donald Trump had won those states; the House Jan. 6 committee and news outlets call these “fake” or “alternate” electors and trace the effort to campaign advisers and a fringe legal theory that Mike Pence could accept alternate slates [1] [6].
2. The scale and who was involved
Advocates tracking the matter say 84 people across those seven states signed false certificates in 2020; some of the organizers and lawyers tied to the scheme include Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman, and high-profile Trump allies were named as part of broader criminal investigations and indictments [2] [6].
3. Criminal cases, charges and state-by-state variation
States pursued different paths: Arizona indicted 11 fake electors and several aides; Michigan charged 16 people; Nevada charged six county and state GOP leaders; Georgia and other states pursued investigations and indictments as well [2] [7] [3]. Some prosecutions succeeded in bringing indictments; others faced dismissals or venue fights — for example, Nevada’s case was moved and then revived by the Nevada Supreme Court to proceed in Clark County [8] [5] [9].
4. Evidence used in prosecutions and reporting
Prosecutors and investigative committees relied on the certificates themselves, contemporaneous communications, testimony and video of signing ceremonies; reporting and timelines assembled by legal analysts compile the factual record of coordination between campaign actors and state-level participants [10] [11]. Where courts have examined intent, evidence has sometimes been judged insufficient — notably in Michigan, where a judge later dismissed charges against most defendants for lack of proven intent [4].
5. Legal defenses and the “Pence card” theory
The scheme rested on a legal theory advanced by attorneys such as John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro that an alternate slate could be presented for the vice president to accept or that litigation could change certified results — a contested and minority interpretation; that theory is central to investigations alleging a coordinated effort to subvert the vote count [6] [10].
6. Outcomes so far: convictions, dismissals, ongoing litigation, pardons
As of the sources collected, several people have been indicted and some cases remain pending; Michigan’s major criminal case saw dismissal of charges against many defendants for insufficient evidence of intent [4]. Separately, President Trump issued broad federal pardons covering many participants in the scheme — a move that affects only federal exposure and does not stop state prosecutions [12] [13] [14].
7. 2024–2025 developments and recurrence in 2024 electors
Some individuals who were on the 2020 alternate slates were again nominated as electors or hold party and government positions in 2024, and a number of 2024 Republican electors were the same people facing state charges from 2020 [15] [16] [17]. News organizations documented that at least eight 2024 electors were indicted for participation in the 2020 scheme [17].
8. Disagreements, legal limits and open questions
Reporting shows disputes over whether participants intended to commit forgery or were relying on legal advice and caveats added to some certificates; courts have differed in judgments about venue, intent and sufficiency of evidence [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention a single, final federal criminal conviction for the core actors tied to forging alternate elector certificates — many matters remain in state courts or were affected by pardons for federal exposure (not found in current reporting).
9. Broader context and why it matters
Prosecutors and commentators frame the episode as an unprecedented, multi-state attempt to substitute certified results and potentially alter the Electoral College count; critics call comparisons to past “alternate” or “faithless” elector episodes misleading and emphasize that 2020’s coordinated slates were different in scale and intent [18] [19]. The uneven legal outcomes raise questions about deterrence, the reach of presidential pardons (federal vs. state), and whether similar tactics might recur [6] [2] [13].
If you want, I can produce a concise table summarizing each state’s charges, key defendants and case status as reported in these sources.