H.R. 1 (2021) Policy Breakdown

Career Opportunities at PILF

28% of Florida ZuckBucks Lingered After the 2020 Election – Tainting Midterms

Grant Monies Flowed Back to Facebook Ad Sales

May 2021 – Flush with cash from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, the Center for Tech and Civil Life (CTCL) flooded key Florida county election offices with money to subsidize procedures preferred by the outside group. As states like Florida and others move to ban such practices going forward, an accounting of the grant records will detail how the entire operation worked before and after the 2020 Presidential Election. Unlike other states, Florida records show a pattern of the late-arriving grants being shoved into digital media outreach campaigns, namely to the benefit of Facebook and Google ad sales departments.

What’s the Deal with the Unspent Cash? Unspent ZuckBucks are proving to be quite widespread among states accepting the grants. The grant letters detailing the cash award and instructions noted that recipients had until December 31, 2020, to expend all funds and give a report by January 31, 2021. On that date, subject counties were to report their activities with the monies and, if needed, ask for a six-month extension to dispose of any remainders. The counties showing leftover cash now have until July 31 to report their activities, if so authorized. During this extension period, Florida enacted a ban on private funding for election offices. Upon the signing of the new law, Miami-Dade officials pledged to return all unspent funds.

PILF President J. Christian Adams“Florida lawmakers were right to close the loophole in election law. Corporate-funded elections violate some of the most basic principles of election integrity. It’s the job of local governments to budget for and administer our voting processes. I commend Governor DeSantis and all involved in helping to make Florida a leader against this threat.”

Read the full report here.

Building Bias: Urban Texas Counties Used $36 Million in ZuckBucks in 2020 Election

March 2021 – Flush with cash from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, the Center for Tech and Civil Life (CTCL) flooded key Texas county election offices with cash to adopt procedures preferred by the outside group. With the dust on the election settled, it’s time to discern how the money was spent, if it influenced outcomes, and just how much cash are we talking about? The answer is, the private money started the process of turning Texas toward procedures outside of the normal statutory framework for running elections.

What Were Counties Promising to Do with the Money?

Grant award letters reviewed by the Foundation showed Texas counties were given money to help shift voting to the mail and away from traditional procedures in Texas law. The large blue-leaning counties received huge sums to transform their elections. Smaller red counties did not receive anything close. Mandated changes included were:

  • Drive-thru voting
  • Mail voting sorting assets
  • Polling place rental expenses
  • Temp labor expenses, hazard pay
  • Personal protective equipment (PPE)
  • Voter education/outreach/radio costs

How Much Money Was Given?

The CTCL and various Texas counties were not always transparent on how the money was spent at the time—or even that they received funds. Some were more open than others. The rough estimate between large and politically close counties was $25 million shortly before the election. PILF accounted for $36 million across 14 of these counties.

Access the full research brief here.

92K Clark County NV Mail Ballots Went to Wrong Addresses in 2020 Presidential Election

Statewide Trump/Biden Vote Difference Was 33K

(March 2021) – The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) released a research brief detailing mail balloting return figures for Clark County, Nevada, during the 2020 General Election.

Clark County 2020 General Election data show that 92,367 mail ballots were returned undeliverable to wrong or outdated addresses, according to records disclosed to PILF. For a sense of scale, Former Vice President Joe Biden carried the whole of Nevada with a final lead of 33,596 votes.

Previous PILF reports showed that Clark County transmitted more than 223,000 mail ballots to wrong or outdated addresses during the spring primaries. A legislative change limited mass-mail balloting to only “active” registered voters for the fall elections.

Total Mail Ballots Transmitted1,277,8971,325,934
USPS Undeliverable92,367223,469
Active Undeliverables92,36793,585
Inactive Undeliverables129,884

Access the full research brief, here.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.


H.R. 1 (2021) Studies and Reference Materials

The Public Interest Legal Foundation offers a variety of resources to help citizens understand the dangers of H.R. 1 and accompanying legislation as it pertains to election integrity, state control of election procedures, and judicial independence. Included here is the Foundation’s section-by-section review of the bill as introduced, links to legislative updates, and related news coverage.

Official Bill Status Tracker (Congress.gov)

Text of H.R. 1 (Congress.gov)

News and Editorial Coverage

Washington Free Beacon — H.R. 1 Would Undercut States Barring Heinous Felons from Voting (February 17, 2021)

Gatestone Institute — If You Thought the 2020 Were Chaotic, Just Wait (February 8, 2021)

The Washington Times Op-Ed – Under H.R. 1, Legal and Illegal Votes Look the Same (February 8, 2021)

The Epoch TimesCritics Warn HR1 Is ‘Attack on American Liberties’ (January 27, 2021)

The Washington TimesDemocrats Question Election Results: ‘We just trust the machines, and we shouldn’t’ (January 24, 2021)

PILF’s Tour Through H.R. 1

After the prefatory sections, the 791-page bill[1] divides into three sections: Division A- Voting, Division B- Campaign Finance and Division C- Ethics. This summary focuses on Division A. 

In Division A, the bill contains a provision that:

  • Prohibits states from requiring more than a signature to verify a person’s eligibility to register to vote. [Sec. 1004]
  • Prohibits states from requiring voter ID at the polls- a sworn statement is all that can be required for identification. [Sec. 1903]
  • Forces states to use same-day registration, requiring only signature attestation as to a registrant’s eligibility, and requiring that the registrant be allowed to cast a vote that day, with no mention of it being provisional. [Sec. 1031]
  • Prohibits states from banning curbside voting on election day. [Sec. 1908]
  • Forces states to use ballot drop boxes for absentee and early voting and have them available at least 45 days before the election and “during all hours of the day.” [Sec. 1907]
  • Automatically registers to vote all eligible “individuals” (as opposed to “citizens”) whose names and addresses appear in state and federal government databases (this also means that the federal government will decide a person’s domicile and thus their taxing state). States have up to four months to even notify the person that they have been automatically registered. [Sec. 1012]
  • Requires all “contributing” state and federal agencies, defined as those that possess a person’s name, address, birthdate and citizen status, to send that information to the state election official for automatic registration. [Sec. 1014]
  • Expands list of agencies that must offer automatic voter registration to those utilizing its services to include: state agencies that regulate gun sales (state Attorney General in most states), state departments of education, the Social Security Administration, the VA, the Defense Manpower Date Center of the Department of Defense, the Employee and Training Administration of the Department of Labor, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which must automatically register a convicted felon to vote so long as the felon has completed “any part of” of his sentence.  [Sec. 1013(e)]
  • Prohibits contributing agencies that do not ask for citizenship status in their normal course of business from completing any service transactions for the person until he or she either registers to vote or declines to register to vote (previously such agencies were just required to offer a registration form). [Sec. 1013(c)(2)]
  • Forces states to accept all voter registration applications by criminalizing the refusal to accept one, even when it is rejected “under the color of law” (i.e., for a lawful reason) by an election official. [Sec. 1071]
  • Prohibits states from collecting more than the last 4 of a registrant’s Social Security number. [Sec. 1005]
  • Criminalizes “hindering, interfering with, or preventing” anyone from voting or from registering to vote. [Sec. 1302(a)(5),(c)(1)].  The penalty is up to a $100,000 fine and 5 years in prison. [Sec. 1302(c)(2)]. Query whether providing information to election officials regarding a registrant’s eligibility could be considered “interfering” with the ability of someone to vote. 
  • Criminalizes challenging any registrant’s eligibility to register or vote, with fines and imprisonment up to one year per offense. [Sec. 1201(d)]
  • Prohibits state election officials from using a list of potentially ineligible registrants to challenge the eligibility of a registrant unless that list contains the registrant’s photo, signature or unique identifying information; if not, it is an “unverified match list” and cannot be used. [Sec. 1201(a)-(b)]
  • Forces states to give mail-in ballots to all American Indians living on tribal lands without requiring them to request a ballot or to provide their address. [Sec. 1904(a)(2)]
  • Requires states to offer Internet voter registration. [Sec. 1001]
  • Allows 16-year-olds to register to vote, even though they cannot vote until age 18. [Sec. 1012, Sec. 1094].  Because Section 1201(c) of the bill makes it illegal for a non-election official to challenge anyone’s eligibility to vote on election day, registering 16 and 17-year-olds effectively ensures that they will vote (because their ID is not required to be presented at polling locations, and even if questioned by election officials, they can simply sign a statement attesting that they are eligible to vote).
  • Prohibits public disclosure of voter roll data except for registrant names, address, and birthday (the only information necessary for voter registration) and specifically prohibits release of the signature of the registrant, any part of their social security number, their driver’s license number, email address, and phone number. [Sec. 1015 (e)(1)]. By withholding this information from the public, the ability to verify a registrant’s identity for list maintenance purposes becomes almost impossible. Thus, non-partisan groups who routinely conduct data comparisons of voter rolls to identify deceased or otherwise ineligible registrants, will be unable to do so, especially in light of the bill’s “anti-caging” law, buried later in the bill, which outlaws use of “unverified data” to assess a registrant’s eligibility. “Unverified data” is conveniently defined as that which lacks the registrant’s signature, or part of a social security number, or other uniquely identifying data. [Sec. 1201(a)(3)]
  • Forces states to comply with new “National Standards” for comparing data when conducting list maintenance (standards will govern which data can be compared and the rules for matching it). States that fail to timely report their compliance will have their funding withheld. [Sec. 1015(e)(5)]
  • Forces states to have 15 consecutive days of early in-person voting prior to election day, with each location open at least 10 hours a day. [Sec. 1611]
  • Forces states to “ensure that no individual will be required to wait longer than 30 minutes to cast a ballot at the polling place.” [Sec. 1906(a)(1)(B)]
  • Requires states to allow all registered voters to cast an absentee ballot by mail without needing a reason. [Sec. 1621]
  • Requires states to accept mail in ballots that are postmarked on or before election day but are received up to 10 days after the election. [Sec. 1621(e)]
  • Requires states to pay for return postage of mail-in/absentee ballots, as well as voter registration applications and applications for an absentee ballot. [Sec. 1623]
  • Requires states to send a blank absentee ballot to anyone who requests one (not just UOCAVA members) so long as the person promises not to vote twice and signs an attestation that he is eligible to vote. [Sec. 1706]
  • Designates all universities and colleges as official voter registration agencies and requires each to designate a “Campus Vote Coordinator.” [Sec. 1901]
  • Limits challenges to a registrant’s eligibility to only those based on personal knowledge and documented in writing. [Sec. 1201(c)]
  • Prohibits states from using undeliverable election mail as a basis to challenge a registrant’s eligibility to vote or his registration status. [Sec. 1201(a)-(b)].  This could eliminate a key list maintenance tool states use in which they utilize returned undeliverable election mail to correct their registration lists.
  • Prohibits a state’s chief election official from running for office unless he recuses himself from his election responsibilities. [Sec. 1821]
  • Changes criminal laws on felon voting and criminal convictions because Congress finds that having various state laws creates “an unfair disparity and unequal protection in elections based solely on where a person lives.” [Sec. 1402(4)]

  • Criminalizes “false” statements about election endorsements, election procedures, voter eligibility requirements and consequences to voting while ineligible by adding them to the criminal code under “Deceptive Acts.” [Sec. 1302]
  • Eliminates all penalties in the naturalization process for non-citizens who vote after being automatically registered. [Sec. 1015]
  • Prohibits criminal prosecution of non-citizens for voting if they were automatically registered or consented to automatic registration. [Sec. 1015].  Because nearly all state agencies are now required to make every applicant for social services either affirmatively agree to automatic registration or affirmatively decline to be automatically registered, any noncitizens who agree to be registered will be immune from criminal liability by doing so. 
  • Authorizes Congress to unilaterally reduce a state’s representation in Congress “when the right to vote is denied” [Sec. 3]. Without further definition and separated from the original qualifiers contained in the Fourteenth Amendment itself[2], these seven words could be used by Congress to reduce a state’s representation on the basis of anything it defines as vote denial. 
  • Limits access to the federal court system for any challenges to this bill or to any laws enacted as a result of this bill, by requiring they be filed in just one court – the District Court for the District of Columbia.[3][4] [5] The inclusion of a requirement that all litigation over the unconstitutionality of any law stemming from this bill can only be brought in one court[6] exemplifies just how far the authors of the bill are willing to go to control, contain and extinguish their opposition.  Indeed, even if all fifty states and the most experienced and well-funded NGOs joined forces to mount an offensive attack against the constitutional violations contained in this monstrosity, the bill anticipates such a response and aggregates all opposition into one side and just one attorney to argue the merits. [Sec. 4- Standards for Judicial Review]
  • Prevents state officials from conducting list maintenance on the voter roll by preventing them from removing a registrant on the basis of any of the following (now called “Factors Not Considered as Objective and Reliable Evidence of Ineligibility”):
  • A registrant’s failure to vote in any election,
  • A registrant’s failure to return any notice (address confirmation card), and,
  • A registrant’s failure to take any action at all to update or confirm their registration.

Now, registrants can only be removed for “objective and reliable evidence of ineligibility” which, of course, is not defined.

  • Requires all states to use voting machines that offer ranked choice voting capabilities [3001(e)]

Regarding Redistricting for Congressional Districts

  • Although changing state congressional districts, the bill claims to not affect the manner in which states carry out state and local elections [2434]. This could theoretically create two state congressional maps for every state- one for local and state elections and the other for federal elections.
  • Forces states to form a state Independent Redistricting Commission (IRD) [2411] to redistrict every state’s congressional districts
  • Requires states to appoint a “Nonpartisan Agency” that will pick the IRD commissioners. This agency is appointed by state legislatures [2414] with no guidelines other than members must not provide partisan services, must maintain impartiality and can’t advocate for either party.
  • Authorizes the state’s Nonpartisan Agency to pick the first 6 members of the 15-member commission and then 45 days later, the 6 members must pick the remaining 9 members. The members must be 1/3 majority party, 1/3 minority party and 1/3 independent party members.  The members must also be diverse with no further definition. [2411]
  • Disqualifies as commission members anyone who, during the previous ten years, donated more than $1,000 combined to a PAC or candidate or multiple candidates during a campaign; all lobbyists, paid campaign people, public office holders, and relatives of any of the above [2412(a)(2)]
  • Prohibits “mid-decade redistricting” [2402] so that whatever is done via this bill cannot be changed until after the next decennial census
  • Prevents state IRD commissions from considering historical voting blocs or residences of current House members or candidates when drawing new district maps. They can, however, consider “communities of interest” so as not to divide them.  Such is defined as an “area with recognized similarities of interests including ethnic, racial, economic, tribal, social, cultural, geographic, or historic identities.” They may include political subdivisions like counties, cities, or school districts, but not political similarities. [2413]
  • Requires states to establish a “Select Committee on Redistricting” as a 4-member partisan group of legislators (2-2) who approve the pool of commission candidates to fill the other 9 spots [2414(b)]. It is unclear how tie votes will be decided.
  • Requires that a “Nonpartisan Agency,” which is of an unknown size, be established by the state legislature to appoint the first 6 members of the IRD
  • Appropriates federal tax dollars to the states at a rate of $150,000 for each House member the state has.  [2431] So Nebraska, for example, will get 150 x 5= 750,000 while California will get 150,000 x 55= 8.25M to do this.  Thus, this project will cost the country $65,250,000 (435 House reps x 150k each).

Actions to Limit the Power of Federal Judges 

  • Creates a new appointed Commission to monitor the actions of the federal judiciary to ensure that their rulings are independent and support free and fair elections. This Commission can require any judge to testify and will submit annual reports to Congress [3202 establishing the “Commission to Protect Democratic Institutions” and 3601- defining such institutions as those “essential to ensuring an independent judiciary, free and fair elections and the rule of law.”].  This is the third law affecting federal judges and how they rule. The first is the elimination of all of the courts to hear cases regarding this Act except for the United States District Court fo the District of Columbia [Sec. 4].  The second is in Sec. 7001 which establishes a new Code of Conduct for federal judges (not yet written). This third part of the bill, if enacted, will monitor judicial rulings to ensure that the judges remain independent.

Miscellaneous and Endnotes

  • Changes Census rules to require that incarcerated people be deemed to reside in the state from which they last lived before going to jail [2701]
  • Finds that Washington, D.C. should be a state [2201]

Creates a task force to increase voting in U.S. Territories [2301 and 2302]

[1] The 2019 version of HR1 was 570 pages long.

[2] Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that when the right to vote is denied to eligible male citizens, “the basis of the representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.” 

[3] Section 4, “Standards for Judicial Review.”

[4] An attempt to control opposition to the bill by controlling access to the courts was not included in the 2019 version of HR1. Notably, at that time, President Trump had only appointed 84 new federal judges to the bench.  However, by January 4, 2021, the date the new version was introduced, President Trump had appointed 229 new federal judges to the bench. See Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, 1789-present | Federal Judicial Center (fjc.gov) (last accessed 01/26/21). The bill’s inclusion of the new “Standards for Judicial Review” section (Section 3) effectively prevents any of the new judges from ever reviewing or ruling on the constitutionality of an election-related law.  

[5] Of the 15 active judges in the District of Columbia, 11 were appointed by Democrat presidents and 4 were appointed by President Trump. 

[6] This changes federal law on venue that has been in place for over 50 years and which allows plaintiffs to sue in the districts in which they live or where the issue or injury occurred. See 28 USC 1391(e)(1) (venue for actions where defendant is the United States). 

Critical Condition: American Voter Rolls Filled with Errors, Dead Voters, and Duplicate Registrations

INDIANAPOLIS — An independent, nationwide analysis of voter rolls in 42 states has identified thousands of probable deceased and duplicate registrants, as well as cases of individuals credited for voting more than once. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has launched the Safeguarding America’s Votes and Elections (SAVE) Database as an analysis tool to track voter roll deficiencies and potential problem areas across America. Announced today, the groundbreaking findings in their national report indicates that the SAVE Database raises serious concerns over the integrity of states’ voter files as election officials anticipate a surge in mail-in voting this fall.

SAVE revealed 349,773 apparently deceased registrants across 41 states’ voter rolls, with New York, Texas, Michigan, Florida and California alone accounting for 51 percent of the total.

During the 2018 General Election, 37,889 likely duplicate registrants are apparently credited for casting two votes from the same address, and 34,000 registrants appear to have voted from non-residential addresses. Additionally, 6,718 registrants were apparently credited for voting after death. During the 2016 General Election, SAVE revealed that number was higher, with a total of 7,890 registrants apparently being credited for voting after death.

After PILF collected data from 42 states and put it into a format where it could be studied, it was rigorously compared to commercial and government databases to increase confidence in the conclusions with particular emphasis on validating identities matched across state lines. Also included with the data were voter history fields, namely, data about when each registrant voted. The combination of state election data, commercial data, and federal sources such as the Social Security Death Index, provides researchers with perhaps the best platform ever constructed to analyze the health of the voter rolls and catalogue potential vulnerabilities.

The findings are a helpful starting point for state election officials to review the findings and make final determinations and take appropriate actions.

Notable Findings:

  • 349,773: total number of potentially deceased registrants across 41 states.
    • Michigan, Florida, New York, Texas and California account for roughly 51% of national dead registrants.
  • In 2016, 7,890 registrants were apparently credited for voting after death.
  • In 2018, 6,718 registrants were credited for voting after death.
    • North Carolina leads the U.S. in dead registrants credited for voting after death.
  • 43,760 likely duplicate registrants appear to have cast second votes in 2016 from the same address.
  • 37,889 likely duplicate registrants appear to have cast second votes in 2018 from the same address.
    • Thousands of these apparent double votes were exclusively mail ballots
  • 8,360 – Number of registrants apparently registered in 2 states and credited for voting in both states in 2018.
  • 5,500 – Number of apparently duplicate registrants credited for voting twice in the same state from 2 different addresses in 2018.
  • 34,000 – Number of registrants credited for voting from apparently non-residential addresses in 2018.

Download the full report here.

223K Clark County NV Mail Ballots Went to Wrong Addresses in 2020 Primary

17% of County Voter Roll Exhibits Wrong Addresses

(LAS VEGAS, NV.) – August 5, 2020: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today released a research brief detailing mail balloting return figures for Clark County, Nevada, during the June 2020 Primary.

Almost 1 in 5 ballots were returned undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service, according to Clark County figures released to the Foundation this week. A stunning 42 percent of undelivered mail was addressed to “active” registrants.

These numbers show how vote by mail fails. New proponents of mail balloting don’t often understand how it actually works,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “States like Oregon and Washington spent many years building their mail voting systems and are notably aggressive with voter list maintenance efforts. Pride in their own systems does not somehow transfer across state lines. Nevada, New York, and others are not and will not be ready for November.

Undeliverable Addresses by Status

Access the full research brief, here.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.


Is Florida Ready for the 2020 Elections?

TAMPA — As America’s most prized presidential battleground state and a focal point for increased voter turnout, Florida is ill-prepared for mail-in voting according to a new scathing report. The analysis found that Florida’s flawed voter rolls include widespread deceased and duplicate registrants, potential for double voting, and registrants with non-residential addresses.

“Florida’s concerning registered voter lists paired with the expected surge in vote-by-mail this fall is like watching a high-speed train collision occur in slow motion,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “As a must win state for both political parties, Florida’s history with election integrity, ballot counting and voter rolls makes it particularly vulnerable to potential errors and fraud as we near Election Day. Our report’s findings will hopefully spur action by election supervisors and officials across the state to protect the integrity of the coming elections.”

Summary of Findings

  • Deceased registrants — South Florida dominates in terms of deceased registrants remaining on the voter rolls, with Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade among the top counties. As of October 2019:
    • Palm Beach: 3,656 deceased voters on list and 139 votes cast by deceased voters. 
    • Broward: 3,339 deceased voters on list and 10 votes cast by deceased voters. 
    • Miami-Dade: 2,323 deceased voters on list and 45 votes cast by deceased voters. 
    • Hillsborough: 1,121 deceased voters on list and nine votes cast by deceased voters.
    • Orange: 1,000 deceased voters on list and nine votes cast by deceased voters. 
  • Double voting – 1,836 Floridians’ records indicate that they voted twice in a national election with a second vote being cast in a different state.

Sign up for PILF newsletters

Down the Hatch: How Left-Wing Election Reforms Can Be Forced on Unsuspecting Communities

(LAS CRUCES, NM.) – May 2020: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) presents Down the Hatch: How Left-Wing Election Reforms Can Be Forced on Unsuspecting Communities, a new report detailing how sweetheart deals with outside groups can change election laws and “design” better “cultures.”

Down the Hatch here.


–Learn How Dona Ana County invited outside groups to “design a culture” that valued “inclusive democracy” and changed election laws in the process.

–Read how sweetheart deals are floated to change election dates to better ensure preferred outcomes by outside groups.

–Witness the daily collaboration with outside activists to promote ranked choice voting reforms.

–See how activists become county personnel and then simultaneous private contractors for former nonprofit employers.

New Mexico Voter Roll Audit Overview

–Potentially Deceased “Active” Registrants – 1,681

–Registrants Aged 100+ – 1,519

–Potentially Duplicated Registrants at Same Address – 1,584

–Potentially Duplicated Registrants Voting Twice Across State Lines – 55

–Potentially Duplicated Registrants Voting Across County Lines – 30

–Registrants Claiming Potential Commercial Addresses for Voting Purposes – 188

Sign up for PILF newsletters

Report: 28 Million Mail Ballots Went Missing in Past Decade

More Than 2 Million Ballots Also Sent to Wrong Addresses

(INDIANAPOLIS, IN.) – April 13, 2020: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today released a research brief detailing national figures for mail balloting failures, according to previous federal surveys.

Roughly 1 in 5 ballots never completed the mail voting process in the past decade.

Putting the election in the hands of the United States Postal Service would be a catastrophe. Over the recent decade, there were 28 million missing and misdirected ballots,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “These represent 28 million opportunities for someone to cheat. Absentee ballot fraud is the most common; the most expensive to investigate; and can never be reversed after an election. The status quo was already bad for mail balloting. The proposed emergency fix is worse.

PILF relied on U.S. Election Assistance Commission survey data to compile national figures regarding mail ballot errors. The federal surveys reflect the 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 General Elections.

The EAC defines “unknown” ballots as those that “were not returned by voter, spoiled, returned as undeliverable, or otherwise unable to be tracked by your office.”

Summary of Findings – 2012 thru 2018

Total Ballots Transmitted – 146,371,771

Number of Ballots Official Marked “Unknown” After Mailing – 28,359,530

Undeliverable Ballots – 2,147,987

Rejected Ballots upon Receipt – 1,275,924

Access the full research brief, here.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.


Calm Before the Storm: Are Palm Beach County’s Elections Protected Against Emerging Threats?

Year-Out Review Finds Vulnerabilities in Election Systems

(WEST PALM BEACH, FL.) – November 4, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today released Calm Before the Storm: Are Palm Beach County’s Elections Protected Against Emerging Threats?, a new report detailing a variety of vulnerabilities and data findings within the overall Palm Beach County voter registration system.

Read Calm Before the Storm here.

“We are one year out from the 2020 General and this report is a stark reminder that you can’t have election ‘security’ without integrity first,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said.“Palm Beach County serves as an example of the types of vulnerabilities found within Florida’s voting system that could be leveraged by an outside saboteur. Our research suggests these problems are fixable well before the presidential election.

“I want to particularly commend Supervisor Link’s office for not only providing necessary data during our research, but also keeping an open door and accepting our findings,”Adams added.

Summary of Findings

Interstate Duplicate Registrations (NY, PA, RI) – 20,479

Interstate Double Voting in 2016 and/or 2018 – 225

Deceased Registrants – 2,203

Dead Voters – 139

Individuals Registered Twice in Palm Beach County – 413

Admitted Noncitizens Previously Registered – 68 Improper Uses of Non-Residential Addresses — 68

Our press release for the report is available here.

Sign up for PILF newsletters

Older Entries