Ohio refers more than 1,000 alleged noncitizen voter registrations to DOJ; 167 accused of casting ballots
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose said an investigation found 1,084 people who appear to have registered unlawfully, with 167 accused of casting federal ballots since 2018; those cases and 135 other alleged irregularities were referred to the DOJ.
- 1,084 people were identified as appearing to have registered unlawfully; 167 are alleged to have voted in federal elections since 2018.
- The state also referred 135 other alleged voting violations, including double voting, posthumous voting and ballot harvesting.
- Matches were made by comparing voter rolls with BMV records and sending two notices 30 days apart before referral.
- All cases are now with the U.S. Department of Justice; no federal indictments or prosecutions have been publicly reported.
Investigation and methods used
LaRose’s office used cross-checks between the state voter registration database and records from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV). When someone who submitted noncitizen documentation to the BMV appeared on the voter roll, officials flagged the registration for follow-up. The state sends two notices, spaced 30 days apart, asking the person to confirm U.S. citizenship or cancel registration; unanswered cases may be referred to prosecutors. See the Ohio legislative briefing for details.
Findings and numbers
According to LaRose’s office, investigators identified 1,084 registrants who “appear to have registered to vote unlawfully in Ohio.” Of those, 167 are alleged to have cast ballots in federal elections dating back to 2018. The office also referred 135 additional alleged irregularities for possible prosecution, including:
- 99 alleged double votes in two different states
- 16 alleged double votes within Ohio
- 14 alleged votes cast after a recorded date of death
- 4 alleged ballot-harvesting cases
- 2 alleged registrations at unlawful addresses
These figures were summarized by news outlets reporting on the Secretary of State’s announcement; see reporting from Fox News and a local summary at Hoodline.
Scope and limitations of the findings
The reported numbers cover activity going back to the 2018 election cycle. Officials emphasize the language “appear” because matches may be preliminary — clerical errors, shared names, or other inaccuracies can produce false positives. Federal and state law require reasonable efforts to maintain accurate rolls, but procedures and protections vary. The Bipartisan Policy Center offers analysis on list maintenance standards and risks.
Legal and political context
List maintenance is legally required but politically contentious. Civil rights groups warn that aggressive removal risks disenfranchising eligible voters, especially when matches are based on imperfect data. Protect Democracy and other advocates have raised concerns about voter challenges and protections for at-risk populations. State officials counter that failing to address potential unlawful registrations undermines public confidence in elections.
Responses and next steps
The referral package has been sent to the U.S. Department of Justice, where federal prosecutors will review evidence and decide whether to bring charges. LaRose framed the referrals as routine enforcement to protect election integrity and accurate voter rolls; his office has not released names or case-level details. News outlets note there is no public confirmation of indictments tied to these referrals as of the announcement (see Fox News and Hoodline).
“Anyone who tries to cheat the system will face serious consequences,” LaRose said, emphasizing that even a small number of unlawful votes can matter in close races.
Why the numbers matter — and why they raise questions
Supporters of aggressive list maintenance argue that identifying and referring even a few unlawful registrations demonstrates the system works and deters abuse. Critics note the numbers are small relative to millions of voters and caution that imperfect matches can harm eligible voters. The preliminary nature of the findings — the use of “appear” — means the legal process must establish facts and, where appropriate, intent.
Implications for Sonoma, California
Although the Ohio referrals are geographically distant, the case offers practical reminders for Sonoma County officials and civic groups:
- Economic and civic trust — Accurate registration helps preserve public confidence; small-scale irregularities are unlikely to affect Sonoma’s economy directly.
- Political consequences — Local officials may need to explain list-maintenance practices and reassure residents about protections against wrongful cancellations.
- Community outreach — Nonprofits and officials should ensure multilingual education for immigrants and newly naturalized citizens to reduce mismatches.
- Administrative review — County counsel and election administrators can review procedures to ensure compliance with California and federal law while protecting eligible voters.
Sources and documentation
Reporting compiled from Times Media Service, Ohio Secretary of State announcements and local and national coverage. Primary sources and documentation:
- Fox News
- Hoodline
- Ohio legislative briefing
- Bipartisan Policy Center report on voter list maintenance
- Protect Democracy — voter challenges
Reporting note: This story preserves original facts and source links as provided by the Secretary of State’s office and subsequent news coverage.
