Fact check: How prevalent is fraud using mail in ballots

1. What people are claiming — the central arguments driving concern

Multiple actors have advanced two competing claims: one asserts that mail ballots are systemically vulnerable and ripe for widespread fraud, citing discoveries of stolen or misdirected ballots; the other contends that such events are isolated and that existing checks largely prevent fraud. Republicans seeking federal monitors in New Jersey invoked concerns about handling and chain-of-custody ^[4], while editorials and local reports emphasized found ballots and mailbox thefts in California as evidence of systemic risk ^{[3] [5]}. These claims frame current policy debates and election oversight requests ^[3].

2. What the evidence actually shows about frequency — rare, measurable, local

Published summaries and verification studies indicate fraud via mail ballots is very rare in the datasets reported here. Verification protocols and academic estimates cited in background reporting place the risk at a fraction of a percent, supporting the view that large-scale manipulation is unlikely ^[2]. Conversely, several documented local incidents — stolen ballot caches in San Mateo County and nearly 100 ballots found in other California locales — show that localized, opportunistic theft or mishandling does occur and can affect small batches of ballots ^{[5] [3]}.

3. Recent concrete incidents that prompted attention — thefts, misplaced ballots, suspicious mailings

In the last months covered by reporting, jurisdictions recorded specific problems: stolen ballots found in homeless encampments, a Maine case where 250 blank absentee ballots went to one address, and postal theft and bank-fraud convictions that included mail-related crimes. These incidents prompted investigations and public warnings, and officials emphasized that such episodes are actionable crimes, not proof of large-scale electoral fraud ^{[3] [6] [1]}. These occurrences drive calls for both enforcement and procedural fixes.

4. How election systems respond — checks, replacements, and conviction examples

Election officials describe multiple safeguards: logging every mail ballot, cross-checking against registration records, signature verification, two-step authentication processes for applications and returned ballots, and the ability to issue replacement ballots when theft is detected ^{[2] [7]}. Prosecutors have also pursued criminal cases, such as the California postal/bank fraud convictions, demonstrating legal recourse for mail-related crimes. Officials emphasize that these layered practices reduce the chance that stolen or forged ballots will change outcomes ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Geographic and procedural variation matters — a patchwork of risk and response

Security and risk differ by state and country because mail voting protocols, postal reliability, and enforcement capacity vary widely. Ohio touts a two-part authentication process that officials say builds confidence ^[7], while Canadian municipal strikes and postal delays create different kinds of vulnerabilities, primarily logistical rather than fraudulent ^[8]. Local factors — homeless encampments, theft rings, or postal workforce issues — shape the kinds of problems jurisdictions face and the remedies they prioritize ^{[5] [8]}.

6. The political narrative — amplification, motives, and oversight requests

Political actors use isolated incidents to argue for broader narratives. Requests for federal monitors in New Jersey illustrate how concerns about mail-ballot handling are leveraged to argue for increased oversight ^[4]. Editorials calling California examples “cautionary” suggest sweeping policy changes. At the same time, state officials and election directors push back, framing such appeals as disproportionate to the demonstrated risk and pointing to robust existing safeguards ^{[4] [7]}. Recognizing these motives clarifies why similar facts produce divergent policy prescriptions.

7. What prosecutions and investigations reveal — deterrence and limits

Recent prosecutions in California and ongoing investigations in Maine demonstrate that criminal enforcement can deter and remedy mail-related ballot crimes, but they also reveal limits: prosecutions typically address opportunistic thefts or fraud schemes rather than coordinated attempts to subvert entire elections. Investigations often lead to replacement ballots and criminal charges, but they rely on detection and reporting; undetected thefts remain a latent risk. The cases underscore that enforcement complements, but does not substitute for, preventive safeguards ^{[1] [6]}.

8. Bottom line for policymakers and voters — balance risk reduction with access

The assembled evidence supports a pragmatic conclusion: mail-ballot fraud exists at a low but nonzero level, concentrated in opportunistic, local incidents rather than widespread conspiracies. Policymakers should prioritize targeted measures — stronger chain-of-custody procedures, visible dropbox monitoring, prompt investigation and prosecution of thefts, and public education on reporting — to reduce tangible risks while preserving the access benefits of mail voting. Recognizing both the rarity of systemic fraud and the reality of local vulnerabilities clarifies sensible, evidence-based responses ^{[2] [3]}.