How did state-level prosecutions or referrals for alleged 2020 voting irregularities distribute across battleground and non‑battleground states?
Executive summary
State-level prosecutions and administrative referrals tied to alleged irregularities in the 2020 election were real but numerically limited, scattered across many states, and concentrated both in some high-profile battleground jurisdictions (notably Georgia and Wisconsin) and in non‑battleground states that reported isolated fraud convictions over multiple years (Heritage/Brookings compilations) [1][2]. Available public tracking shows hundreds of proven fraud cases across many states over years, but the reporting reviewed does not provide a definitive, state-by-state census that cleanly partitions 2020‑specific referrals into “battleground” versus “non‑battleground” buckets [2][3].
1. What was prosecuted or referred: a mixed administrative-and-criminal landscape
States pursued a mix of administrative referrals, criminal charges and civil suits after 2020; boards sometimes “bound over” cases to prosecutors (Georgia’s State Election Board referred felons, non‑citizen voting and misplaced‑ballot incidents after 2020) while other actions were federal or local criminal probes [4][5]. National legal groups catalogued dozens of post‑election lawsuits in battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Texas among them), but most of those were civil contests of results rather than criminal prosecutions litigation/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[6][7][8].
2. Battleground states: lots of litigation, comparatively few proven systemic prosecutions tied to 2020
Reporting emphasizes litigation in swing states—multiple suits in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada—yet courts largely rejected broad fraud claims and many civil challenges failed on procedural or substantive grounds [6][8][9]. High‑profile criminal investigations and indictments later emerged in Georgia (the Fulton County grand jury/indictment and subsequent developments) and federal probes touched Fulton County records, attracting national attention and an FBI search of the Fulton County elections center tied to 2020 materials [10][5]. Still, even in swing states the settled public record shows comparatively few convictions tied to 2020 that would alter outcomes; many contested matters remained litigation or investigation rather than criminal conviction [8][5].
3. Non‑battleground states: prosecutions and convictions clustered in ordinary fraud cases across many states
Databases compiled by think tanks and researchers document hundreds of proven fraud instances over multi‑year windows that include 2020, with convictions in dozens of states that are not battlegrounds—Heritage’s database and other trackers show convictions and prosecutions spread widely, and Brookings summarized that roughly 1,465 proven cases across many jurisdictions produced about 1,264 criminal prosecutions over time [1][2][3]. Many of these cases involved individual misconduct, clerical errors, or localized absentee‑ballot schemes rather than coordinated efforts to alter a statewide presidential outcome [11][2].
4. The quantitative picture — concentrated attention, diffuse outcomes, and important caveats
Analysts agree there were hundreds to low‑thousands of fraud cases across multiple election cycles, but those totals are not equivalent to proof of widespread 2020 irregularities that would change results; Brookings and Campaign Legal Center materials stress that the volume of proven fraud is tiny relative to ballots cast and that high‑profile litigation largely failed [2][8][9]. Importantly, the sources here do not provide a single, contemporaneous dataset that breaks 2020‑specific prosecutions into battleground vs non‑battleground tallies with legal status (charged, convicted, referred), so any precise distributional percentage cannot be asserted from the reporting provided [2][3].
5. Patterns, incentives and political context shaping where referrals occurred
Prosecutions and referrals often followed routine review by state election boards or local prosecutors who pursue discrete allegations (for example, felons or noncitizens voting in Georgia), while national political narratives amplified certain jurisdictions—especially battleground counties in Georgia—into focal points for federal inquiries and media attention [4][5][12]. Alternative interpretations exist: election integrity advocates stress prosecutions where evidence supports charges, while election‑denial networks emphasize politically salient battlegrounds even when courts and federal officials found insufficient evidence [9][7].
6. What the sources do not resolve — gaps that matter
The assembled reporting documents litigation and many longstanding fraud cases across states, and highlights high‑profile probes in battleground places, but it does not deliver a clear, source‑verified breakdown enumerating every 2020‑era referral or prosecution by state and labeling each as “battleground” or “non‑battleground.” Therefore, conclusions must be cautious: prosecutions and referrals did occur in both categories, with much public attention in battleground states but many proven individual‑level convictions across non‑swing states as well [2][1][5].
7. Bottom line
State‑level prosecutions and referrals tied to alleged 2020 irregularities were spread across the country: battleground states received outsized attention and produced some notable investigations and referrals (and federal probes in Georgia), but the bulk of documented proven fraud cases over time are small, scattered, and include many non‑battleground jurisdictions; the sources reviewed do not permit a precise numeric split of 2020‑specific prosecutions into battleground versus non‑battleground categories [5][4][2].