In this country, we expect and deserve free and fair elections. We can all agree: No one ineligible should cast a vote—not one. Violations should be investigated and those responsible held accountable.
Equally important, every eligible citizen must be able to vote, have that vote counted accurately, and know the rules are applied consistently. Election officials must be able to do their jobs without intimidation, and lawful results must be respected.
Why do I say this?
Because we are constantly barraged with extraordinary claims of voter fraud. If you hear only the allegation and not what follows, you miss the facts. You miss the truth: Election denial hurts legitimate voters.
Voter fraud happens, but evidence doesn’t support widespread fraud. In Pennsylvania, Votebeat and Spotlight PA identified just 176 allegedly fraudulent ballots among more than 67 million votes cast since mid-2015. Even that figure includes unproven allegations.
After 2020, Donald Trump’s campaign and allies brought approximately 60 election-related court challenges. Most were dismissed or dropped; none established fraud that would have changed the presidential outcome. Yet the claim that the election was stolen persists.
Consider what’s happening ahead of the midterms.
The Department of Homeland Security flagged nearly 16,000 potential noncitizens on Nevada’s voter rolls. Pressed for evidence by Nevada officials, it identified 185 suspected noncitizens. Nevada officials reviewed the records and reported all 185 appeared to be U.S. citizens. Federal officials disputed that finding. But where was the evidence behind the original headline?
In mid-October, the Department of Justice sought to set aside ballots tied to more than 20,000 California registrants suspected of being noncitizens. Officials had 48 hours to verify citizenship and segregate returned ballots where they could not. It also sought to withhold additional ballots from those whose citizenship remained unverified. Los Angeles officials reviewing a sample found serious problems with the list, including records of people born in the United States and registrations already inactive or canceled. The allegations remain disputed. Yet the government sought to hold up ballots while voting was already underway, potentially impacting thousands of legitimate votes.
What if your name were on one of those lists? Wouldn’t you expect the government to verify its claims before putting your vote at risk?
Alaska raises a different concern. Two Senate candidates have nearly identical names: Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. State election officials initially removed the second candidate, but Alaska courts allowed him on the ballot. The Justice Department then sued to delay certification if the incumbent loses by a margin small enough that confusion between the names could affect the outcome. This tactic, right or wrong, is not new and has been used by both parties. The issue is that the federal government is seeking to intervene in a state’s election certification even after state courts resolved the ballot-access dispute.
Closer to home, federal election monitors are being sent to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Lehigh, and Luzerne counties. Monitoring itself is not the problem. Both parties use poll watchers, and federal monitoring has a long history. But the DOJ plans to deploy approximately 1,000 monitors nationwide, roughly three times the number in the 2022 midterms, without explaining why these four counties were selected. During Wyoming’s August primary, local officials reported that federal monitors asked to examine voting machines, raising concerns from the state’s Republican governor. The DOJ says its monitors will only observe and take notes.
Why such a significant escalation, particularly when widespread voter fraud remains unsubstantiated? And what assurances do voters have that monitors will not interfere with voting?
These threats aren’t abstract. Following the 2024 election in Bucks County, the Board of Elections Chair publicly reported that board members, their families, and county staff had been subjected to unprecedented threats and harassment, including threatening messages referred to law enforcement. That should concern all of us.
So, what can we do?
FACT FOCUS: Misinformation About Voting Spreads Less Than a Week Before Election Day
First, recognize that safeguards already exist. Pennsylvania verifies voter eligibility, uses paper ballots that can be audited, tests voting equipment, and conducts two independent audits before certifying election results. But we must also look beyond headlines. When we hear extraordinary fraud claims, we should question the evidence, follow investigations, and consult credible sources, including our local election officials, before forming opinions or repeating allegations. We owe it to ourselves and one another to separate fact from fear.
Election denial weakens public trust and can disenfranchise legitimate voters. That could be you. It could be me. But we have the power to get this back on track. Thinking critically, challenging unsubstantiated claims, speaking out against federal government overreach, and voting to protect our constitutional rights are all within our power. If we expect our own votes to count, we must be just as willing to defend the votes of people we disagree with.
Let’s not lose sight of the real goal: free and fair elections for everyone.
