U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

    

Election Crimes:  An Initial Review and

Recommendations for Future Study

December 2006

REPORT
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 1 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requires the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) to study a host of topics, including “voting fraud” and “voter 

intimidation.” In 2005, EAC embarked on an initial review of the existing knowledge of 

voting fraud and voter intimidation. The goal of that study was to develop a working 

definition of “voting fraud” and “voter intimidation” and to identify research 

methodology to conduct a comprehensive, nationwide study of these topics. 

EAC staff along with two, bipartisan consultants reviewed the existing information 

available about voting fraud and voter intimidation, including reading articles, books and 

reports; interviewing subject matter experts; reviewing media reports of fraud and 

intimidation; and studying reported cases of prosecutions of these types of crimes. It is 

clear from this review that there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud in 

elections as well as what constitute the most common acts of fraud or intimidation. There 

is also no apparent consensus on the meaning of the phrases “voting fraud” and “voter 

intimidation.” Some think of voting fraud and voter intimidation only as criminal acts, 

while others include actions that may constitute civil wrongs, civil rights violations, and 

even legal activities. 

In order to facilitate future study of these topics, EAC developed a working definition of 

“election crimes.” “Election crimes” are intentional acts or willful failures to act, 

prohibited by state or federal law, that are designed to cause ineligible persons to 

participate in the election process; eligible persons to be excluded from the election 

process; ineligible votes to be cast in an election; eligible votes not to be cast or counted; 

or other interference with or invalidation of election results. Election crimes generally 

fall into one of four categories: acts of deception, acts of coercion, acts of damage or 

destruction, and failures or refusals to act. 

From EAC’s review of existing information on the issue, it was apparent that there have 

been a number of studies that touched on various topics and regions of the country 

concerning voting fraud and intimidation, but that there had never been a comprehensive, 

nationwide study of these topics. EAC will conduct further research to provide a 

comprehensive, nationwide look at “election crimes.” Future EAC study of this topic 

will focus on election-related, criminal activity and will not include acts that are 

exclusively civil wrongs, campaign finance violations, and violations of ethical laws and 

regulations. EAC will study these concepts by surveying the states’ chief election 

officials about complaints they received, election crime investigation units regarding 

complaints received and those referred to law enforcement, and law enforcement and 

prosecutorial agencies regarding complaints received, charges filed, and final disposition 

of each complaint. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 2 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

INTRODUCTION

Voting fraud and voter intimidation are phrases familiar to many voting-aged 

Americans. However, they mean different things to different people. Voting fraud and 

voter intimidation are phrases used to refer to crimes, civil rights violations, and, at times, 

even the lawful application of state or federal laws to the voting process. Past study of 

these topics has been as varied as its perceived meaning. In an effort to help understand 

the realities of voting fraud and voter intimidation in our elections, the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) has begun this, phase one, of a comprehensive study on 

election crimes. In this phase of its examination, EAC has developed a working 

definition of election crimes and adopted research methodology on how to assess the 

existence and enforcement of election crimes in the United States. 

PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EAC STUDY

 

Section 241 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) calls on the EAC to research 

and study various issues related to the administration of elections. During Fiscal Year 

2006, EAC began projects to research several of the listed topics. These topics for 

research were chosen in consultation with the EAC Standards Board and Board of 

Advisors. Voting fraud and voter intimidation are topics that the EAC as well as its 

advisory boards felt were important to study to help improve the administration of 

elections for federal office. 

EAC began this study with the intention of identifying a common understanding of 

voting fraud and voter intimidation and devising a plan for a comprehensive study of 

these issues. The initial study was not intended to be a comprehensive review of existing 

voting fraud and voter intimidation actions, laws, or prosecutions. To conduct that type 

of extensive research, a basic understanding had to first be established regarding what is 

commonly referred to as voting fraud and voter intimidation. Once that understanding 

was reached, a definition had to be crafted to refine and in some cases limit the scope of 

what reasonably can be researched and studied as evidence of voting fraud and voter 

intimidation. That definition will serve as the basis for recommending a plan for a 

comprehensive study of the area. 

To accomplish these tasks, EAC employed two consultants, Job Serebrov and Tova 

Wang,1 who worked with EAC staff and interns to conduct the research that forms the 

basis of this report. The consultants were chosen based upon their experience with the 

topic and the need to assure a bipartisan representation in this study. The consultants and 

EAC staff were charged with (1) researching the current state of information on the topic 

1

 Biographies for Job Serebrov and Tova Wang, the two consultants hired by EAC, are attached as 

Appendix “1”. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 3 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

of voting fraud and voter intimidation; (2) developing a uniform definition of voting 

fraud and voter intimidation; and (3) proposing recommended strategies for researching 

this subject. 

EAC consultants reviewed existing studies, articles, reports and case law on voting fraud 

and intimidation and conducted interviews with experts in the field. EAC consultants and 

staff then presented their initial findings to a working group that provided feedback. The 

working group participants were: 

The Honorable Todd Rokita 

Indiana Secretary of State 

Member, EAC Standards Board and the 

Executive Board of the Standards Board 

Kathy Rogers 

Georgia Director of Elections, Office of 

the Secretary of State 

Member, EAC Standards Board 

J.R. Perez 

Guadalupe County Elections 

Administrator, Texas 

Barbara Arnwine 

Executive Director, Lawyers Committee 

for Civil Rights under Law 

Leader of Election Protection Coalition 

Benjamin L. Ginsberg 

Partner, Patton Boggs LLP 

Counsel to National Republican 

Campaign Committees and Republican 

candidates 

Robert Bauer 

Chair of the Political Law Practice at the 

law firm of Perkins Coie, District of 

Columbia 

National Counsel for Voter Protection, 

Democratic National Committee 

Mark (Thor) Hearne II 

Partner-Member, Lathrop & Gage, St 

Louis, Missouri 

National Counsel to the American 

Center for Voting Rights 

Barry Weinberg 

Former Deputy Chief and Acting Chief, 

Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Technical Advisor: 

Craig Donsanto 

Director, Election Crimes Branch, U.S. 

Department of Justice 

Throughout the process, EAC staff assisted the consultants by providing statutes and 

cases on this subject as well as supervision on the direction, scope and product of this 

research. 

The consultants drafted a report for EAC that included their summaries of relevant cases, 

studies and reports on voting fraud and voter intimidation as well as summaries of the 

interviews that they conducted. The draft report also provided a definition of voting 

fraud and intimidation and made certain recommendations developed by the consultants 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 4 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

or by the working group on how to pursue further study of this subject. This document 

was vetted and edited by EAC staff to produce this final report. 

EXISTING INFORMATION ABOUT FRAUD AND INTIMIDATION

To begin our study of voting fraud and voter intimidation, EAC consultants reviewed the 

current body of information on voting fraud and voter intimidation. The information 

available about these issues comes largely from a very limited body of reports, articles, 

and books. There are volumes of case law and statutes in the various states that also 

impact our understanding of what actions or inactions are legally considered fraud or 

intimidation. Last, there is anecdotal information available through media reports and 

interviews with persons who have administered elections, prosecuted fraud, and studied 

these problems. All of these resources were used by EAC consultants to provide an 

introductory look at the available knowledge of voting fraud and voter intimidation. 

Reports and Studies of Voting fraud and Intimidation

Over the years, there have been a number of studies conducted and reports published 

about voting fraud and voter intimidation. EAC reviewed many of these studies and 

reports to develop a base-line understanding of the information that is currently available 

about voting fraud and voter intimidation. EAC consultants reviewed the following 

articles, reports and books, summaries of which are available in Appendix “2”: 

Articles and Reports 

• People for the American Way and the NAACP, “The Long Shadow of Jim 

Crow,” December 6, 2004. 

• Laughlin McDonald, "The New Poll Tax," The American Prospect vol. 13 

no. 23, December 30, 2002. 

• Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, “An Evaluation: Voter Registration 

Elections Board” Report 05-12, September, 2005. 

• Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee County District Attorney’s 

Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Attorney’s Office 

“Preliminary Findings of Joint Task Force Investigating Possible Election 

Fraud,” May 10, 2005. 

• National Commission on Federal Election Reform, “Building Confidence 

in U.S. Elections,” Center for Democracy and Election Management, 

American University, September 2005. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 5 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

• The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and Spencer 

Overton, Commissioner and Law Professor at George Washington 

University School of Law “Response to the Report of the 2005 

Commission on Federal Election Reform,” September 19, 2005. 

• Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise, 

“Republican Ballot Security Programs: Vote Protection or Minority Vote 

Suppression – or Both?” A Report to the Center for Voting Rights & 

Protection, September, 2004. 

• Alec Ewald, “A Crazy Quilt of Tiny Pieces: State and Local 

Administration of American Criminal Disenfranchisement Law,” The 

Sentencing Project, November 2005. 

• American Center for Voting Rights “Vote Fraud, Intimidation and 

Suppression in the 2004 Presidential Election,” August 2, 2005. 

• The Advancement Project, “America’s Modern Poll Tax: How Structural 

Disenfranchisement Erodes Democracy” November 7, 2001 

• The Brennan Center and Professor Michael McDonald “Analysis of the 

September 15, 2005 Voting Fraud Report Submitted to the New Jersey 

Attorney General,” The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of 

Law, December 2005. 

• Democratic National Committee, “Democracy at Risk: The November 

2004 Election in Ohio,” DNC Services Corporation, 2005

• Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of 

Justice, "Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public 

Integrity Section for 2002." 

• Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of 

Justice, "Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public 

Integrity Section for 2003." 

• Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of 

Justice, "Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public 

Integrity Section for 2004." 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 6 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

• Craig Donsanto, "The Federal Crime of Election Fraud," Public Integrity 

Section, Department of Justice, prepared for Democracy.Ru, n.d., at 

http://www.democracy.ru/english/library/international/eng_1999-11.html 

• People for the American Way, Election Protection 2004, Election 

Protection Coalition, at 

http://www.electionprotection2004.org/edaynews.htm

• Craig Donsanto, "Prosecution of Electoral Fraud under United State 

Federal Law," IFES Political Finance White Paper Series, IFES, 2006. 

• General Accounting Office, "Elections: Views of Selected Local Election 

Officials on Managing Voter Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens 

Can Vote," Report to Congressional Requesters, September 2005. 

• Lori Minnite and David Callahan, "Securing the Vote: An Analysis of 

Election Fraud," Demos: A Network of Ideas and Action, 2003. 

• People for the American Way, NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil 

Rights, "Shattering the Myth: An Initial Snapshot of Voter 

Disenfranchisement in the 2004 Elections," December 2004. 

Books 

• John Fund, Stealing Elections: How Voting Fraud Threatens Our 

Democracy, Encounter Books, 2004. 

• Andrew Gumbel, Steal this Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of 

Democracy in American, Nation Books, 2005. 

• Tracy Campbell, Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, An 

American Political Tradition – 1742-2004, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 

2005. 

• David E. Johnson and Jonny R. Johnson, A Funny Thing Happened on the 

Way to the White House: Foolhardiness, Folly, and Fraud in the 

Presidential Elections, from Andrew Jackson to George W. Bush, Taylor 

Trade Publishing, 2004. 

• Mark Crispin Miller, Fooled Again, Basic Books, 2005. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 7 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

During our review of these documents, we learned a great deal about the type of research 

that has been conducted in the past concerning voting fraud and voter intimidation. None 

of the studies or reports was based on a comprehensive, nationwide study, survey or 

review of all allegations, prosecutions or convictions of state or federal crimes related to 

voting fraud or voter intimidation in the United States. Most reports focused on a limited 

number of case studies or instances of alleged voting fraud or voter intimidation. For 

example, “Shattering the Myth: An Initial Snapshot of Voter Disenfranchisement in the 

2004 Elections,” a report produced by the People for the American Way, focused 

exclusively on citizen reports of fraud or intimidation to the Election Protection program 

during the 2004 Presidential election. Similarly, reports produced annually by the 

Department of Justice, Public Integrity Division, deal exclusively with crimes reported to 

and prosecuted by the United States Attorneys and/or the Department of Justice through 

the Public Integrity Section. 

It is also apparent from a review of these articles and books that there is no consensus on 

the pervasiveness of voting fraud and voter intimidation. Some reports, such as 

“Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” suggest that there is little or no evidence of 

extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting. This conflicts directly with other 

reports, such as the “Preliminary Findings of Joint Task Force Investigating Possible 

Election Fraud,” produced by the Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee County 

District Attorney’s Office, FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office. That report cited evidence of 

more than 100 individual instances of suspected double-voting, voting in the name of 

persons who likely did not vote, and/or voting using a name believed to be fake. 

Voter intimidation is also a topic of some debate because there is little agreement 

concerning what constitutes actionable voter intimidation. Some studies and reports 

cover only intimidation that involves physical or financial threats, while others cover 

non-criminal intimidation, including legal practices that allegedly cause vote suppression. 

One point of agreement is that absentee voting and voter registration by nongovernmental 

groups create opportunities for fraud. For example, a number of studies cited 

circumstances in which voter registration drives have falsified voter registration 

applications or have destroyed voter registration applications of persons affiliated with a 

certain political party. Others conclude that paying persons per voter registration 

application creates the opportunity and perhaps the incentive for fraud. 

Interviews with Experts

In addition to reviewing prior studies and reports on voting fraud and intimidation, EAC 

consultants interviewed a number of persons regarding their experiences and research of 

voting fraud and voter intimidation. Persons interviewed included: 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 8 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

Wade Henderson 

Executive Director, 

Leadership Conference for Civil Rights 

Wendy Weiser 

Deputy Director, 

Democracy Program, The Brennan 

Center 

William Groth

Attorney for the plaintiffs in the Indiana 

voter identification litigation 

Lori Minnite 

Barnard College, Columbia University 

Neil Bradley 

ACLU Voting Rights Project 

Pat Rogers 

Attorney, New Mexico 

Nina Perales 

Counsel, 

Mexican American Legal Defense and 

Education Fund 

Rebecca Vigil-Giron 

Secretary of State, New Mexico 

Sarah Ball Johnson 

Executive Director, 

State Board of Elections, Kentucky 

Stephen Ansolobohere 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Chandler Davidson 

Rice University 

Tracey Campbell 

Author, Deliver the Vote

Douglas Webber 

Assistant Attorney General, Indiana 

Heather Dawn Thompson 

Director of Government Relations, 

National Congress of American Indians 

Jason Torchinsky

Assistant General Counsel, 

American Center for Voting Rights 

Robin DeJarnette 

Executive Director, 

American Center for Voting Rights 

Harry Van Sickle 

Commissioner of Elections, 

Pennsylvania 

Tony Sirvello 

Executive Director 

International Association of Clerks, 

Recorders, Election Officials and 

Treasurers 

Joseph Sandler 

Counsel 

Democratic National Committee 

John Ravitz 

Executive Director 

New York City Board of Elections 

Sharon Priest 

Former Secretary of State, Arkansas 

Kevin Kennedy 

Executive Director 

State Board of Elections, Wisconsin 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 9 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

Evelyn Stratton 

Justice 

Supreme Court of Ohio 

Joseph Rich 

Former Director 

Voting Section, Civil Rights Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Craig Donsanto 

Director, Public Integrity Section 

U.S. Department of Justice 

John Tanner 

Chief 

Voting Section, Civil Rights Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

 

These interviews in large part confirmed the conclusions that were gleaned from the 

articles, reports and books that were analyzed. For example, the interviewees largely 

agreed that absentee balloting is subject to the greatest proportion of fraudulent acts, 

followed by vote buying and voter registration fraud. They similarly pointed to voter 

registration drives by nongovernmental groups as a source of fraud, particularly when the 

workers are paid per registration. Many asserted that impersonation of voters is probably 

the least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely type of fraud to be 

discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an 

inefficient method of influencing an election. 

Interviewees differed on what they believe constitutes actionable voter intimidation. Law 

enforcement and prosecutorial agencies tend to look to the criminal definitions of voter 

intimidation, which generally require some threat of physical or financial harm. On the 

other hand, voter rights advocates tended to point to activities such as challenger laws, 

voter identification laws, polling place locations, and distribution of voting machines as 

activities that can constitute voter intimidation. 

Those interviewed also expressed opinions on the enforcement of voting fraud and voter 

intimidation laws. States have varying authorities to enforce these laws. In some states, 

enforcement is left to the county or district attorney, and in others enforcement is 

managed by the state’s attorney general. Regardless, voting fraud and voter intimidation 

are difficult to prove and require resources and time that many local law enforcement and 

prosecutorial agencies do not have. Federal law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies 

have more time and resources but have limited jurisdiction and can only prosecute 

election crimes perpetrated in elections with a federal candidate on the ballot or 

perpetrated by a public official under the color of law. Those interviewed differed on the 

effectiveness of the current system of enforcement. Some allege that prosecutions are not 

sufficiently aggressive. Others feel that the current laws are sufficient for prosecuting 

fraud and intimidation. 

A summary of the each of the interviews conducted is attached as Appendix “3”. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 10 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

Case Law and Statutes

Consultants reviewed more than 40,000 cases that were identified using a series of search 

terms related to voting fraud and voter intimidation. The majority of these cases came 

from courts of appeal. This is not surprising, since most cases that are publicly reported 

come from courts of appeal. Very few cases that are decided at the district court level are 

reported for public review. 

Very few of the identified cases were applicable to this study. Of those that were 

applicable, no apparent thematic pattern emerged. However, it did seem that the greatest 

number of cases reported on fraud and intimidation have shifted from past patterns of 

stealing votes to present problems with voter registration, voter identification, the proper 

delivery and counting of absentee and overseas ballots, provisional voting, vote buying, 

and challenges to felon eligibility. 

A listing of the cases reviewed in this study is attached as Appendix “4”. 

Media Reports

EAC consultants reviewed thousands of media reports concerning a wide variety of 

potential voting fraud or voter intimidation, including: 

• absentee ballot fraud, 

• voter registration fraud, 

• voter intimidation and suppression, 

• deceased voters on voter registration list and/or voting, 

• multiple voting, 

• felons voting, 

• non-citizens voting, 

• vote buying, 

• deceptive practices, and 

• fraud by election officials. 

While these reports showed that there were a large number of allegations of voting fraud 

and voter intimidation, they provided much less information as to whether the allegations 

were ever formalized as complaints to law enforcement, whether charges were filed, 

whether prosecutions ensued, and whether any convictions were made. The media 

reports were enlightening regarding the pervasiveness of complaints of fraud and 

intimidation throughout the country, the correlation between fraud allegations and the 

perception that the state was a “battleground” or “swing” state, and the fact that there 

were reports of almost all types of voting fraud and voter intimidation. However, these 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 11 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

reports do not provide much data for analysis as to the number of complaints, charges and 

prosecutions of voting fraud and intimidation throughout the country. 

DEFINITION OF ELECTION CRIMES

From this study of available information on voting fraud and voter intimidation, EAC has 

learned that these terms mean many things to many different people. These terms are 

used casually to refer to anything from vote buying to refusing to register a voter to 

falsifying voter registration applications. Upon further inspection, however, it is 

apparent that there is no common understanding or agreement of what constitutes “voting 

fraud” and “voter intimidation.” Some think of voting fraud and voter intimidation only 

as criminal acts, while others include actions that may constitute civil wrongs, civil rights 

violations, and even legal activities. To arrive at a common definition and list of 

activities that can be studied, EAC assessed the appropriateness of the terminology that is 

currently in use and applied certain factors to limit the scope and reach of what can and 

will be studied by EAC in the future. As a result, EAC has adopted the use of the term 

“election crimes” for its future study. 

Current Terminology

The phrase “voting fraud” is really a misnomer for a concept that is much broader. 

“Fraud” is a concept that connotes an intentional act of deception, which may constitute 

either a criminal act or civil tort depending upon the willfulness of the act. 

Fraud, n. 1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a 

material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. • Fraud is usu[ally] 

a tort, but in some cases (esp. when the conduct is willful) it may be a crime. 

Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, p. 685. 

“Voting” is the act of casting votes to decide an issue or contest. Black’s Law 

Dictionary, Eighth Edition, p. 1608. Using these terms to form a definition of “voting 

fraud,” it means fraudulent or deceptive acts committed to influence the act of voting. 

Thus, a voter who intentionally impersonates another registered voter and attempts to 

vote for that person would be committing “voting fraud.” Similarly, a person who 

knowingly provides false information to a voter about the location of the voter’s polling 

place commits fraud on the voter. 

The phrase “voting fraud” does not capture a myriad of other criminal acts that are 

related to elections which are not related to the act of voting and/or do not involve an act 

of deception. For example, “voting fraud” does not capture actions or willful inaction in 

the voter registration process. When an election official willfully and knowingly refuses 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 12 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

to register to vote a legally eligible person it is a crime. This is a crime that involves 

neither the act of voting nor an act of deception. 

To further complicate matters, the phrases “voting fraud” and “voter intimidation” are 

used to refer to actions or inactions that are criminal as well as those that are potentially 

civil wrongs and even those that are legal. Obviously, criminal acts and civil wrongs are 

pursued in a very different manner. Criminal acts are prosecuted by the local, state or 

federal government. Generally, civil wrongs are prosecuted by the individual who 

believes that they were harmed. In some cases, when civil rights are involved, the Civil 

Rights Division of the Department of Justice may become involved. 

New Terminology

The goal of this study was to develop a common definition of what is generically referred 

to as “voting fraud” and “voter intimidation” that would serve as the basis for a future, 

comprehensive study of the existence of these problems. Because the current 

terminology has such a variety of applications and meanings, “voting fraud” and “voter 

intimidation” can be read to encompass almost any bad act associated with an election. 

Such broad terminology is not useful in setting the boundaries of a future study. A 

definition must set parameters for future study by applying limitations on what is 

included in the concepts to be studied. The current terminology applies no such 

limitations. 

Thus, EAC has adopted the use of the phrase “election crimes” to limit the scope of its 

future study. This term captures all crimes related to the voter registration and voting 

processes and excludes civil wrongs and non-election related crimes. EAC adopted this 

definition because it better represents the spectrum of activities that we are able to and 

desire to study. In addition, EAC recognizes that the resources, both financial and human 

capital, needed to study all “voting fraud” and “voter intimidation,” including criminal 

acts, civil actions, as well as allegations of voter suppression through the use of legal 

election processes are well beyond the resources available to EAC. Finally, by limiting 

this definition to criminal acts, EAC can focus its study on a set of more readily 

measurable data. Criminal behavior is readily defined through state and federal statutes 

and is prosecuted by government agencies. This is not the case with civil matters. Civil 

actions can be prosecuted by individuals and/or government entities. Furthermore, what 

constitutes civil action is far less defined, subject to change, and can vary from case to 

case. A more complete discussion of the concept of “election crimes” follows along with 

a list of excluded actions. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 13 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

The Definition of an Election Crime for Purposes of this Study

Election crimes are intentional acts or willful failures to act, prohibited by state or federal 

law, that are designed to cause ineligible persons to participate in the election process; 

eligible persons to be excluded from the election process; ineligible votes to be cast in an 

election; eligible votes not to be cast or counted; or other interference with or invalidation 

of election results. Election crimes generally fall into one of four categories: acts of 

deception, acts of coercion, acts of damage or destruction, and failures or refusals to act. 

Election crimes can be committed by voters, candidates, election officials, or any other 

members of the public who desire to criminally impact the result of an election. 

However, crimes that are based upon intentional or willful failure to act assume that a 

duty to act exists. Election officials have affirmative duties to act with regard to 

elections. By and large, other groups and individuals do not have such duties. 

The victim of an election crime can be a voter, a group of voters, an election official, a 

candidate, or the public in general. Election crimes can occur during any stage of the 

election process, including but not limited to qualification of candidates; voter 

registration; campaigning; voting system preparation and programming; voting either 

early, absentee, or on election day; vote tabulation; recounts; and recalls. 

The following are examples of activities that may constitute election crimes. This list is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but is representative of what states and the federal 

government consider criminal activity related to elections. 

Acts of Deception 

o Knowingly causing to be mailed or distributed, or knowingly mailing or 

distributing, literature that includes false information about the voter’s precinct or 

polling place, the date and time of the election or a candidate; 

o Possessing an official ballot outside the voting location, unless the person is an 

election official or other person authorized by law or local ordinance to possess a 

ballot outside of the polling location; 

o Making or knowingly possessing a counterfeit of an official election ballot; 

o Signing a name other than his/her own to a petition proposing an initiative, 

referendum, recall, or nomination of a candidate for office; 

o Knowingly signing more than once for the proposition, question, or candidate in 

one election; 

o Signing a petition proposing an initiative or referendum when the signer is not a 

qualified voter. 

o Voting or attempting to vote in the name of another person; 

o Voting or attempting to vote more than once during the same election; 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 14 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

o Intentionally making a false affidavit, swearing falsely, or falsely affirming under 

an oath required by a statute regarding their voting status, including when 

registering to vote, requesting an absentee ballot or presenting to vote in person; 

o Registering to vote without being entitled to register; 

o Knowingly making a materially false statement on an application for voter 

registration or re-registration; and 

o Voting or attempting to vote in an election after being disqualified or when the 

person knows that he/she is not eligible to vote. 

Acts of Coercion 

o Using, threatening to use, or causing to be used force, coercion, violence, 

restraint, or inflicting, threatening to inflict, or causing to be inflicted damage 

harm, or loss, upon or against another person to induce or compel that person to 

vote or refrain from voting or to register or refrain from registering to vote; 

o Knowingly paying, offering to pay, or causing to be paid money or other thing of 

value to a person to vote or refrain from voting for a candidate or for or against an 

election proposition or question; 

o Knowingly soliciting or encouraging a person who is not qualified to vote in an 

election; 

o Knowingly challenging a person’s right to vote without probable cause or on 

fraudulent grounds, or engaging in mass, indiscriminate, and groundless 

challenging of voters solely for the purpose of preventing voter from voting or to 

delay the process of voting; 

o As an employer, attempting by coercion, intimidation, threats to discharge or to 

lessen the remuneration of an employee, to influence his/her vote in any election, 

or who requires or demands an examination or inspection by himself/herself or 

another of an employee’s ballot; 

o Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept money or other valuable thing in 

exchange for signing or refraining from signing a petition proposing an initiative; 

o Inducing or attempting to induce an election official to fail in the official’s duty 

by force, threat, intimidation, or offers of reward; 

o Directly or through any other person advancing, paying, soliciting, or receiving or 

causing to be advanced, paid, solicited, or received, any money or other valuable 

consideration to or for the use of any person in order to induce a person not to 

become or to withdraw as a candidate for public office; and 

o Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept money or other thing of value in 

exchange for registering to vote. 

 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 15 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

Acts of Damage or Destruction 

o Destroying completed voter registration applications; 

o Removing or destroying any of the supplies or other conveniences placed in the 

voting booths or compartments; 

o Removing, tearing down, or defacing election materials, instructions or ballots; 

o Fraudulently altering or changing the vote of any elector, by which such elector is 

prevented from voting as the person intended; 

o Knowingly removing, altering, defacing or covering any political sign of any 

candidate for public office for a prescribed period prior to and following the 

election; 

o Intentionally changing, attempting to change, or causing to be changed an official 

election document including ballots, tallies, and returns; and 

o Intentionally delaying, attempting to delay, or causing to be delayed the sending 

of certificate, register, ballots, or other materials whether original or duplicate, 

required to be sent by jurisdictional law. 

Failure or Refusal to Act 

o Intentionally failing to perform an election duty, or knowingly committing an 

unauthorized act with the intent to effect the election; 

o Knowingly permitting, making, or attempting to make a false count of election 

returns; 

o Intentionally concealing, withholding, or destroying election returns or attempts 

to do so; 

o Marking a ballot by folding or physically altering the ballot so as to recognize the 

ballot at a later time; 

o Attempting to learn or actually and unlawfully learning how a voter marked a 

ballot; 

o Distributing or attempting to distribute election material knowing it to be 

fraudulent; 

o Knowingly refusing to register a person who is entitled to register under the rules 

of that jurisdiction; 

o Knowingly removing the eligibility status of a voter who is eligible to vote; and 

o Knowingly refusing to allow an eligible voter to cast his/her ballot. 

What is not an Election Crime for Purposes of this Study

There are some actions or inactions that may constitute crimes or civil wrongs that EAC 

does not include in its definition of “election crimes.” All criminal or civil violations 

related to campaign finance contribution limitations, prohibitions, and reporting either at 

the state or federal level are not “election crimes” for purposes of this study and any 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 16 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

future study conducted by EAC. Similarly, criminal acts that are unrelated to elections, 

voting, or voter registration are not “election crimes,” even when those offenses occur in 

a polling place, voter registration office, or a candidate’s office or appearance. For 

example, an assault or battery that results from a fight in a polling place or at a 

candidate’s office is not an election crime. Last, violations of ethical laws and 

regulations and the Hatch Act are not “election crimes.” Similarly, civil or other wrongs 

that do not rise to the level of criminal activity (i.e., a misdemeanor, relative felony or 

felony) are not “election crimes.” 

RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO STUDY ELECTION CRIMES

As a part of its study, EAC sought recommendations on ways that EAC can research the 

existence of election crimes. EAC consultants, the working groups and some of the 

persons interviewed as a part of this study provided the following recommendations. 

Recommendation 1: Conduct More Interviews 

Future activity in this area should include conducting additional interviews. In particular, 

more election officials from all levels of government, parts of the country, and political 

parties should be interviewed. It would also be especially beneficial to talk to law 

enforcement officials, specifically federal District Election Officers (“DEOs”) and local 

district attorneys, as well as civil and criminal defense attorneys. 

Recommendation 2: Follow Up on Media Research 

The media search conducted for this phase of the research was based on a list of search 

terms agreed upon by EAC consultants. Thousands of articles were reviewed and 

hundreds analyzed. Many of the articles contained allegations of fraud or intimidation. 

Similarly, some of the articles contained information about investigations into such 

activities or even charges brought. Additional media research should be conducted to 

determine what, if any, resolutions or further activity there was in each case. 

Recommendation 3: Follow Up on Allegations Found in Literature Review 

Many of the allegations made in the reports and books that were analyzed and 

summarized by EAC consultants were not substantiated and were limited by the date of 

publication of those pieces. Despite this, such reports and books are frequently cited by 

various interested parties as evidence of fraud or intimidation. Further research should 

include follow up on the allegations identified in the literature review. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 17 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

Recommendation 4: Review Complaints Filed With “ MyVote1” Voter Hotline 

During the 2004 election and the statewide elections of 2005, the University of 

Pennsylvania led a consortium of groups and researchers in conducting the MyVote1 

Project. This project involved using a toll-free voter hotline that voters could call for poll 

locations, be transferred to a local hotline, or leave a recorded message with a complaint. 

In 2004, this resulted in more than 200,000 calls received and more than 56,000 recorded 

complaints. 

Further research should be conducted using the MyVote1 data with the cooperation of the 

project leaders. While perhaps not a fully scientific survey given the self-selection of the 

callers, the information regarding 56,000 complaints may provide insight into the 

problems voters may have experienced, especially issues regarding intimidation or 

suppression. 

Recommendation 5: Further Review of Complaints Filed With U.S. Department of 

Justice 

According to a recent GAO report, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the 

Department of Justice has a variety of ways it tracks complaints of voter intimidation. 

Attempts should be made to obtain relevant data, including the telephone logs of 

complaints and information from the Interactive Case Management (ICM) system. 

Further research should also include a review and analysis of the Department of 

Justice/Office of Personnel Management observer and “monitor field reports” from 

Election Day. 

Recommendation 6: Review Reports Filed By District Election Officers 

Further research should include a review of the reports that must be filed by every 

District Election Officer (DEO) to the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division 

of the Department of Justice. The DEOs play a central role in receiving reports of voting 

fraud and investigating and pursuing them. Their reports back to the Department would 

likely provide tremendous insight into what actually transpired during the last several 

elections. Where necessary, information could be redacted or made confidential. 

Recommendation 7: Attend Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Symposium 

Further activity in this area should include attending the next Ballot Access and Voting 

Integrity Symposium. At this conference, prosecutors serving as District Election 

Officers in the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices obtain annual training on fighting election 

fraud and voting rights abuses. These conferences are sponsored by the Voting Section of 

the Civil Rights Division and the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, and 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 18 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

feature presentations by Civil Rights officials and senior prosecutors from the Public 

Integrity Section and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. By attending the symposium 

researchers could learn more about the following: how District Election Officers are 

trained; how information about previous election and voting issues is presented; and how 

the Voting Rights Act, the criminal laws governing election fraud and intimidation, the 

National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act are described and 

explained to participants. 

Recommendation 8: Conduct Statistical Research 

EAC should measure voting fraud and intimidation using interviews, focus groups, and a 

survey and statistical analysis of the results of these efforts. The sample should be based 

on the following factors: 

o Ten locations that are geographically and demographically diverse where 

there have been many reports of fraud and/or intimidation; 

o Ten locations (geographically and demographically diverse) that have not had 

many reports of fraud and/or intimidation; 

EAC should also conduct a survey of elections officials, district attorneys, and district 

election officers. The survey sample should be large in order to be able to get the 

necessary subsets, and it must include a random set of counties where there have and 

have not been a large number of allegations. 

Recommendation 9: Explore Improvements to Federal Law 

Future research should review federal law to explore ways to make it easier to impose 

either civil or criminal penalties for acts of intimidation that do not necessarily involve 

racial animus and/or a physical or economic threat. 

Recommendation 10: Use Observers to Collect Data on Election Day 

Use observers to collect data regarding fraud and intimidation at the polls on Election 

Day. There may be some limitations to the ability to conduct this type of research, 

including difficulty gaining access to polling places for the purposes of observation, and 

concerns regarding how the observers themselves may inadvertently or deliberately 

influence the occurrence of election crimes. 

Recommendation 11: Study Absentee Ballot Fraud 

Because absentee ballot fraud constitutes a large portion of election crimes, a stand-alone 

study of absentee ballot fraud should be conducted. Researchers should look at actual 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 19 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

cases to see how absentee ballot fraud schemes are conducted in an effort to provide 

recommendations on more effective measures for preventing fraud when absentee ballots 

are used. 

Recommendation 12: Use Risk Analysis Methodology to Study Fraud 

Conduct an analysis of what types of fraud people are most likely to commit. 

Researchers will use that risk analysis to rank the types of fraud based on the “ease of 

commission” and the impact of the fraud. 

Recommendation 13: Conduct Research Using Database Comparisons 

Researchers should compare information on databases to determine whether the voter 

rolls contain deceased persons and felons. In addition, the voter rolls can then be 

compared with the list of persons who voted to determine whether a vote was recorded by 

someone who is deceased or if felons are noted as having voted. 

Recommendation 14: Conduct a Study of Deceptive Practices 

The working group discussed the increasing use of deceptive practices, such as flyers and 

phone calls with false and/or intimidating information, to suppress voter participation. A 

number of groups, such as the Department of Justice, the EAC, and organizations such as 

the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, keep phone logs regarding complaints of such 

practices. These logs should be reviewed and analyzed to see how and where such 

practices are being conducted and what can be done about them.

Recommendation 15: Study the Use of HAVA Administrative Complaint Procedure as 

Vehicle for Measuring Fraud and Intimidation

EAC should study the extent to which states are utilizing the administrative complaint 

procedure mandated by HAVA. In addition, EAC should study whether data collected 

through the administrative complaint procedure can be used as another source of 

information for measuring fraud and intimidation. 

Recommendation 16: Examine the Use of Special Election Courts 

Given that many state and local judges are elected, it may be worth exploring whether 

special election courts should be established to handle fraud and intimidation complaints 

before, during, and after Election Day. Pennsylvania employs such a system that could 

be investigated to determine how well that system is working. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 20 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

Accepted Recommendations

There has never been a comprehensive, national study that gathered data regarding all 

claims, charges, and prosecutions of voting crimes. EAC feels that a comprehensive 

study is the most important research that it can offer the election community and the 

public. As such, EAC has adopted all or a part of six of the 16 recommendations made by 

EAC consultants and the working group. 

While several of the other recommendations could be used to obtain more anecdotal 

information regarding election crimes, EAC believes that what is needed is a 

comprehensive survey and study of the information available from investigatory 

agencies, prosecutorial bodies and courts on the number and types of complaints, charges 

and prosecutions of election crimes. Additional media reviews, additional interviews and 

the use of observers to collect information from voters on Election Day will only serve to 

continue the use of anecdotal data to report on election crimes. Hard data on complaints, 

charges and prosecutions exists and EAC should gather and use that data, rather than rely 

on the perceptions of the media or the members of the public as to what might be fraud or 

intimidation. 

Some of the recommendations are beyond the scope of the current study. While election 

courts may be a reasonable conclusion to reach after EAC determines the volume and 

type of election crimes being reported, charged or prosecuted, it is premature to embark 

on an analysis of that solution without more information. Last, some of the 

recommendations do not support a comprehensive study of election crimes. While a risk 

analysis might be appropriate in a smaller scale study, EAC desires to conduct a broader 

survey to avoid the existing problem of anecdotal and limited scope of information. 

In order to further its goal of developing a comprehensive data set regarding election 

crimes and the laws and procedures used to identify and prosecute them, EAC intends to 

engage in the following research activities in studying the existence and enforcement of 

election crimes: 

Survey Chief Election Officers Regarding Administrative Complaints

Likely sources of complaints concerning election crimes are the administrative complaint 

processes that states were required to establish to comply with Section 402 of HAVA. 

These complaint procedures were required to be in place prior to a state receiving any 

funds under HAVA. Citizens are permitted to file complaints alleging violations of 

HAVA Title III provisions under these procedures with the state’s chief election official. 

Those complaints must be resolved within 60 days. The procedures also allow for 

alternative dispute resolution of claims. Some states have expanded this process to 

include complaints of other violations, such as election crimes. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 21 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

In order to determine how many of these complaints allege the commission of election 

crimes, EAC will survey the states’ chief election officers regarding complaints that have 

been filed, investigated, and resolved since January 1, 2004. In addition, we will seek 

information about any complaints of fraud or intimidation filed with the election official 

outside of the administrative complaint procedure. EAC will use the definition of 

election crimes provided above in this report in its survey so that data regarding a 

uniform set of offenses will be collected. 

 Survey State Election Crime Investigation Units Regarding Complaints Filed 

and Referred 

Several chief state election officials have developed investigation units focused on 

receiving, investigating, and referring complaints of election crimes. These units were 

established to bolster the abilities of state and local law enforcement to investigate 

allegations of election crimes. California, New York and Florida are just three examples 

of states that have these types of units. 

EAC will use a survey instrument to gather information on the numbers and types of 

complaints that have been received by, investigated, and ultimately referred to local or 

state law enforcement by election crime investigation units since January 1, 2004. These 

data will help EAC understand the pervasiveness of perceived fraud, as well as the 

number of claims that state election officials felt were meritorious of being referred to 

local and state law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for further action. 

Survey Law Enforcement and Prosecutorial Agencies Regarding Complaints 

and Charge of Voting Crimes

While voters, candidates and citizens may call national hotlines or the news media to 

report allegations of election crimes, it is those complaints that are made to law 

enforcement that can be investigated and ultimately prosecuted. Thus, it is critical to the 

study of election crimes to obtain statistics regarding the number and types of complaints 

that are made to law enforcement, how many of those complaints result in the perpetrator 

being charged or indicted, and how many of those charges or indictments result in pleas 

or convictions. 

Thus, EAC will survey law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies at the local, state and 

federal level to determine the number and types of complaints, charges or indictments, 

and pleas or convictions of election crimes since January 1, 2004. In addition, EAC will 

seek to obtain an understanding of why some complaints are not charged or indicted and 

why some charges or indictments are not prosecuted. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 22 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study 

December 2006 

Analyze Survey Data in Light of State Laws and Procedures

Once a reliable data set concerning the existence and enforcement of election crimes is 

assembled, a real analysis of the effectiveness of fraud prevention measures can be 

conducted. For example, data can be analyzed to determine if criminal activities related 

to elections are isolated to certain areas or regions of the country. Data collected from 

the election official surveys can be compared to the data regarding complaints, charges 

and prosecutions gathered from the respective law enforcement and prosecutorial 

agencies in each jurisdiction. The effect and/or effectiveness of provisions such as voter 

identification laws and challenger provisions can be assessed based on hard data from 

areas where these laws exist. Last, analyses such as the effectiveness of enforcement can 

be conducted in light of the resources available for the effort. 

CONCLUSION

Election crimes are nothing new to our election process. The pervasiveness of these 

crimes and the fervor with which they have been enforced has created a great deal of 

debate among academics, election officials, and voters. Past studies of these issues have 

been limited in scope and some have been riddled with bias. These are issues that 

deserve comprehensive and nonpartisan review. EAC, through its clearinghouse role, 

will collect and analyze data on election crimes throughout the country. These data not 

only will tell us what types of election crimes are committed and where fraud exists, but 

also inform us of what factors impact the existence, prevention, and prosecution of 

election crimes.