FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Pennsylvania Man Indicted on Federal Charges of Voting Twice in 2024 Presidential Election

A federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned a two-count indictment against a 65-year-old Apollo, Pennsylvania resident, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 15, 2026, 12:04 p.m. ET
Developing

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

More on this incident

A federal grand jury in Pittsburgh has indicted Jeffrey Pope, 65, of Apollo, Pennsylvania, on charges of violating federal voting laws, according to a U.S. Department of Justice announcement dated August 14, 2026, from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The announcement was made by United States Attorney Troy Rivetti. Pope is named as the sole defendant in the two-count indictment. According to the indictment as described in that record, Pope has been registered to vote in Pennsylvania since 1999 and purchased property in Alaska in 2023, and voted twice in the November 2024 general election, including for the office of President of the United States. The record states the indictment specifically alleges that on or about October 18, 2024, Pope completed and submitted a mail-in ballot casting a vote for President in Alaska, and that on or about October 22, 2024, he completed and submitted a mail-in ballot casting a vote for the same federal office in Pennsylvania. As part of the Pennsylvania submission, the indictment alleges he knowingly and willfully signed a false declaration stating he was qualified to vote by the enclosed ballot and had not already voted in the election. The Justice Department record states the law provides for a maximum total sentence of up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both, and that under the federal Sentencing Guidelines any actual sentence would be based on the seriousness of the offenses and the defendant's prior history, if any. Assistant United States Attorney Nicole A. Stockey is prosecuting the case, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation leading to the indictment, according to the same record. The case is at the charging stage and is proceeding in federal district court. As the Justice Department record states, an indictment is an accusation, and No plea or further scheduling information is contained in the record.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 115 Aug 2026, 16:09current

    First published.

  2. Version 115 Aug 2026, 16:04current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.