Apollo Man Indicted on Federal Charges of Voting Twice in 2024 Election
A federal grand jury in Pittsburgh has indicted a 65-year-old Pennsylvania man for allegedly casting mail-in ballots in both Alaska and Pennsylvania during the 2024 presidential election.
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
On August 14, 2026, United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced that a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh indicted Jeffrey Pope, 65, of Apollo, Pennsylvania, on charges of violating federal voting laws. According to official court records from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the two-count indictment alleges that Pope cast multiple votes in the November 2024 general election.
Prosecutors allege that Pope, who has been registered to vote in Pennsylvania since 1999 and purchased property in Alaska in 2023, submitted a mail-in ballot for the office of President in Alaska on or about October 18, 2024. On or about October 22, 2024, Pope allegedly submitted a second mail-in ballot for the same office in Pennsylvania while signing a declaration stating he was qualified and had not yet voted.
The charges are allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court. The matter remains at the charging stage and is undecided. If convicted, the charges carry a statutory maximum sentence of up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. Assistant United States Attorney Nicole A. Stockey is prosecuting the case, which was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 16:09current
First published.
- 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.