What evidence exists of noncitizen voting in the 2024 US election?

1. What investigators actually found: small, isolated instances

Post‑election audits and cross‑checks produced a handful of credible cases rather than mass fraud: Michigan’s statewide review identified 15 people who appear to have cast ballots while non‑U.S. citizens; most were referred for potential prosecution ^[1]. Other state audits turned up similar tiny totals — for example, an Oregon data error produced 38 noncitizen votes out of more than 2.3 million ballots in that state, and national reviews report similarly minute counts relative to the scale of voting ^[3].

2. No evidence of a coordinated campaign to mobilize noncitizen voting

Multiple outlets and researchers report that no state found a coordinated effort to recruit or direct noncitizen voters in the 2024 contest. Independent reporting and reviews concluded noncitizen voting occurred only in isolated incidents and not in numbers large enough to affect statewide outcomes ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

3. Why the question gained political traction

Republican leaders and some conservative groups elevated concerns about noncitizen voting as a policy and political issue, proposing federal and state measures (proof‑of‑citizenship laws, congressional bills) even though federal law already bars noncitizens from federal elections ^{[6] [7] [8]}. Reporters and experts cited by Reuters and AP say prominent claims—most notably from former President Trump and allied lawmakers—were made “without evidence” and used as part of broader election‑integrity messaging ^{[9] [8]}.

4. Research consensus: rare and not decisive

Longstanding analyses from nonpartisan groups reiterate that proven noncitizen voting is extremely rare and has not been shown to alter election outcomes. The Brennan Center, Bipartisan Policy Center and other research cited in reporting say there is no evidence noncitizen voting has been significant enough to affect elections historically ^{[10] [11] [12]}.

5. Mechanisms that reduce mistaken or illegal noncitizen voting

Election officials use multiple safeguards — common federal registration forms that require attestations, state verification systems tied to DMV and Social Security records, separate municipal ballots where noncitizen local voting is permitted — and audits to find and remove ineligible registrants ^{[13] [10]}. Those systems contributed to identifying the small number of cases flagged after 2024 ^[1].

6. The data that fuels disputes: referrals vs. confirmed votes

Large review efforts often flag many “appearing” noncitizens based on database matches, but those initial flags typically shrink dramatically after individual case review. States reported thousands of possible matches that, on closer inspection, produced only dozens of confirmed or credible cases of actual ballots cast by noncitizens ^{[4] [3]}.

7. Competing claims and whose evidence to trust

Conservative think tanks and election‑integrity advocates have produced estimates that suggest higher registration rates for noncitizens; critics point to methodological flaws and note that even those estimates don’t prove coordinated illegal voting ^[14]. Conversely, mainstream reporters, researchers and state election officials consistently report rarity and lack of coordination — a disagreement grounded in differing data sources and assumptions ^{[14] [5] [12]}.

8. What’s missing or unresolved in the reporting

Available sources do not mention any documented, large‑scale scheme to instruct noncitizens to vote that succeeded in 2024; they also show variation in how states search and classify matches, which creates room for disputed counts ^{[2] [1]}. Some referred cases remain under investigation and prosecutions are ongoing in selected jurisdictions ^{[1] [15]}.

9. Bottom line for readers

Current, public post‑election audits and independent analyses agree that noncitizen voting occurred only in very small numbers in 2024 and there is no evidence those votes were coordinated or influential on the election outcome ^{[2] [3] [1]}. Policymakers advocate sharply different fixes — from proof‑of‑citizenship requirements to criminal referrals — but the empirical record cited by multiple state reviews and researchers does not show a widespread problem ^{[5] [12]}.