Ohio refers more than 1,000 alleged noncitizen voter registrations to DOJ; 167 appear to have cast federal ballots since 2018
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose referred 1,084 alleged noncitizen voter registrations and related irregularities to the Department of Justice, saying 167 individuals appear to have cast federal ballots since 2018 as part of a broader election-integrity review.
Key takeaways
- Referrals: The state sent 1,084 cases of alleged noncitizen registrations and related crimes to the DOJ (Fox News; Hoodline).
- Votes flagged: 167 people appear to have cast votes in federal elections since 2018, which could be a federal crime (Fox News).
- Methods used: State officials cross-checked BMV, the federal SAVE database, Social Security and jury records to locate mismatches (Fox News).
Main story
How the referrals were identified
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s office said it used multiple cross-agency checks to flag possible noncitizen registrations. Officials compared names and records from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database, Social Security Administration files and federal jury pool lists. Those comparisons produced 1,084 potential cases the state referred to the Department of Justice for federal review (Fox News).
What the referrals include
Beyond the 1,084 alleged noncitizen registrations, LaRose’s office reported other potential voting irregularities: 99 instances where the same person appeared to have voted in two different states during the same election, 16 alleged double votes within Ohio, 14 votes after death, 4 cases alleging ballot harvesting and 2 registrations at addresses deemed unlawful. The state also removed roughly 155,000 inactive or abandoned registrations during recent list maintenance to reduce clutter and help spot anomalies (Fox News).
Legal and political backdrop
LaRose has pushed for stronger access to federal data and a state law requiring BMV clerks to check proof of citizenship during in-person voter registration. Supporters argue this formalizes necessary checks to prevent improper registrations. Civil-rights groups and voting-rights advocates have sued, contending the rule could create uneven barriers and disenfranchise eligible voters — for example, people with name changes whose documents do not match exactly (Signal Cleveland).
National rules and proposed federal changes
Under the National Voter Registration Act, states must maintain accurate rolls but federal guidance on handling discovered noncitizen registrations is limited. Most list maintenance uses multistep procedures and cross-agency data matching (Bipartisan Policy Center). Separately, lawmakers have proposed the SAVE Act (H.R.22) to strengthen verification and enforcement at the federal level, reflecting efforts to create clearer national procedures.
Responses and controversy
At the time of the announcement, the Department of Justice had not publicly replied to Ohio’s referral (Fox News). Voting-rights advocates caution that isolated cases are small relative to total votes in major elections and warn that aggressive verification risking false positives could disenfranchise lawful voters. Critics point to potential errors in data matching — such as name changes or record discrepancies — that can falsely flag citizens as noncitizens (Signal Cleveland).
Prosecution context
Prosecutors in Ohio and elsewhere have pursued noncitizen voting cases in the past, but prosecutions remain relatively rare and fact-specific. Historical analysis and case studies show that prosecutions often depend on clear, corroborated evidence; context and details matter (Professornano PDF).
Why critics worry about access
Opponents of the new BMV verification rule argue it creates different registration standards depending on how someone registers, potentially affecting groups such as women who recently changed names or people without updated documentation. They say targeted document checks at one registration point can have disproportionate impacts and urge safeguards to prevent wrongful removals (Signal Cleveland).
Implications beyond Ohio
Observers note broader trade-offs: ensuring election integrity via stricter verification can reduce fraud but risks excluding eligible voters. Ohio’s actions — and any DOJ response — may influence debates on data-sharing, privacy and centralized verification in other jurisdictions. Internationally, this episode illustrates tensions democracies face between accuracy and access (Bipartisan Policy Center).
Reporting notes and sources
This article draws on the Ohio Secretary of State’s announcement and reporting by Times Media Service partners and other outlets. Key sources include Fox News, Hoodline, Signal Cleveland, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Congress.gov entry for the SAVE Act (H.R.22) and historical context from Professornano PDF.
Federal response
LaRose’s office referred the cases to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution; at publication the DOJ had not made public any subsequent charges or statements (Fox News).
Quote: “This is routine maintenance to ensure accurate voter lists and protect election integrity ahead of November 2024,” LaRose said, framing the effort as both preventative and administrative.
For further details, readers can review the original reporting and source materials linked above.
