Have any independent audits ever found registration totals exceeding voting‑age population in Wisconsin, and how were those discrepancies explained?
Executive summary
No provided reporting shows that any independent audit concluded Wisconsin’s registered‑voter totals exceeded the state’s voting‑age population; instead, post‑2020 fact‑checks and state explanations traced apparent “over‑100%” numbers to outdated county registration snapshots, mismatched denominators and election‑day (same‑day) registration, not to an audit finding of impossible totals [1] [2] [3]. Independent reporting and state officials uniformly treated the episode as a data‑interpretation error rather than evidence of audited over‑registration [4] [5].
1. The claim people remember — apparent registration > voting‑age population — was never supported by audits
After the 2020 presidential tabulation in Wisconsin, viral posts claimed more votes or more registered voters than there were people of voting age; multiple fact‑checks found those claims false and did not cite any independent audit that had verified registration counts exceeding the voting‑age population [4] [6]. Reuters specifically found that the registration figure used in a viral claim was outdated, and PolitiFact and AP likewise rated assertions of more votes than registrants as incorrect rather than the product of a confirmatory audit that proved over‑registration [1] [4] [5].
2. Why numbers looked wrong — outdated snapshots, different denominators, and same‑day registration
The core explanations offered by the Wisconsin Elections Commission and independent fact‑checkers were procedural and arithmetic: social posts compared mismatched figures — e.g., votes cast, a stale county registration count, and the state’s voting‑age population — instead of using the up‑to‑date registered‑voter total or the state’s preferred turnout denominator (voting‑age population) [3] [6]. The WEC and reporters also noted Wisconsin’s same‑day (Election Day) registration policy can make county‑level registered‑voter tallies appear low if they are captured before late registrations are processed, producing temporary discrepancies until the rolls are reconciled [2] [7].
3. Audits and oversight in Wisconsin — what exists and what was not found
Wisconsin requires post‑election audits and is subject to legislative oversight via the Legislative Audit Bureau; the available sources describe the audit framework and routine checks but do not show an independent audit that concluded statewide registered totals exceeded voting‑age population [8] [9] [10]. National and state fact‑checking organizations reviewed the 2020 claims and cited administrative explanations (outdated counts, wrong denominators) rather than an audit discovery of inflated rolls [4] [5] [1].
4. Broader context: registration rates, ERIC and “deadwood” caveats
Scholars and researchers note that some jurisdictions historically register more people than an estimated voting‑age population when rolls contain “deadwood” (deceased or moved voters) or when methodologies differ, with Alaska and D.C. frequently cited as examples; MIT Election Lab underscores that registration measures depend on the data source and method, and that a state showing registrations above 100% often signals data artefacts rather than verified voter eligibility violations [11]. Wisconsin participates in standard maintenance practices — including inactivity removals and post‑election audits — and the reporting indicates discrepancies that circulate on social media are overwhelmingly attributable to timing, data snapshots and different denominators rather than to a conclusive independent audit finding of impossible totals [10] [11].
5. What reporting does not show and the honest limit of the record
The set of provided sources does not contain a cited independent audit report that found registered‑voter totals exceeding Wisconsin’s voting‑age population; therefore it cannot be asserted from these materials that such an audit ever occurred or reached that conclusion, only that viral claims were debunked and explained by state officials and fact‑checkers as errors of outdated data and calculation [1] [2] [4]. If an independent audit with that finding exists, it was not included among the supplied sources and cannot be confirmed here.