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.
Fake GOP or Democratic electors in the 2020 and 2024 elections
Executive summary
A coordinated “fake electors” scheme in December 2020 involved 84 people across seven battleground states who signed certificates claiming Donald Trump had won those states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) [1] [2]. Prosecutors have taken mixed paths since: some fake electors were charged in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada while other cases have been dismissed, refiled or revived — and President Trump later issued a broad pardon covering many participants in the federal dimension of those events [2] [3] [4].
1. What happened in 2020: the scheme laid out
In mid-December 2020, groups of Republicans in seven swing states met and signed certificates purporting to be official Electoral College slates claiming Trump won states that certified Biden; those certificates were then circulated to federal and state officials as part of an effort to have alternate slates considered when Congress met on Jan. 6, 2021 [1] [5]. Legal architects such as Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman developed arguments, including theories about a vice president’s role, that underpinned the plan commonly called the “Pence Card” or false-electors scheme [6].
2. Who the states were and the scope
Reporting and public records identify seven states where these alternate certificates were produced: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — totaling about 84 individuals who signed such documents [1] [2] [7]. Some slates included conditional language (for example New Mexico) that attempted to limit legal exposure, a fact noted in later reporting and filings [6].
3. Criminal prosecutions: uneven results and legal headaches
State prosecutions followed with different outcomes. By mid-2024, fake electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada had been charged [2] [8]. Courts have produced mixed rulings: Nevada’s Supreme Court unanimously revived the case against six pro‑Trump electors and allowed prosecution in Clark County [3] [9], while Michigan judges have sometimes dismissed charges for evidentiary or intent reasons [10] [11]. Venue disputes, evidentiary questions and differing state laws have produced a patchwork of rulings [9] [11].
4. Federal involvement and pardons: limits and symbolism
The federal dimension included special-counsel and DOJ attention; but presidential pardons issued by Trump covered many individuals for federal offenses tied to the 2020 electors scheme, a move commentators call largely symbolic because presidential clemency does not reach state prosecutions [4] [12]. News outlets note Trump’s proclamation named dozens (reported numbers vary around 70–77 people) and that prosecutors and defense attorneys may nonetheless cite the pardon in court filings even where it carries no state-law effect [4] [12].
5. Fake electors returning as 2024 electors and officials
Some individuals who served as 2020 alternate electors later held official roles or were tapped as legitimate 2024 electors or state party officials; reporting shows at least a handful were on 2024 presidential elector lists or held local election offices while facing charges [13] [14]. This has raised concerns among election-integrity advocates about party control of elector selection and the potential to repeat similar tactics; advocates and some prosecutors argue prosecutions are meant to deter that risk [15] [8].
6. Disputes over historical analogies and partisan framing
Defenders of the 2020 participants sometimes point to prior rare episodes of “alternate” or “faithless” electors in U.S. history to minimize novelty; fact-checking and legal commentators counter that the 2020 effort was coordinated across multiple states and functionally different from individual faithless electors in other years [16] [17]. Analysts and prosecutors characterize the 2020 activity as an orchestrated scheme to misrepresent state outcomes, while some political allies describe it as precautionary legal paperwork — a dispute courts and juries have been asked to resolve [18] [5].
7. What’s unresolved and where reporting is limited
Available sources document the scope of the slates, the states involved, prosecutions, venue rulings and the presidential pardons [1] [2] [3] [4], but they do not provide a single definitive criminal outcome for all participants — many cases remain pending, have been dismissed, refiled or are affected differently in state courts [11] [9]. Sources do not uniformly list every individual involved or exhaustively track each state’s next procedural steps; readers should treat claims about final legal accountability as evolving [2] [11].
8. Takeaway for readers
Reporting paints a clear bipartisan legal and political tension: prosecutors view the false‑elector certificates as part of a criminal scheme that sought to subvert certified results [5], while defenders emphasize legal theories or political motives and point to presidential clemency for federal exposure [6] [4]. The practical upshot is that the effort changed how parties choose electors and prompted prosecutions whose outcomes vary by jurisdiction; the long-term precedent depends on unresolved court decisions and state-level results [8] [9].