FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Pennsylvania Man Charged With Voting Twice in 2024 Presidential Election

Federal prosecutors in Pittsburgh allege a 65-year-old Apollo resident cast mail-in ballots for president in both Alaska and Pennsylvania. The case has not been tried and remains undecided.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 15, 2026, 2:25 a.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

Federal prosecutors have Jeffrey Pope, 65, of Apollo, Pennsylvania, with voting twice for the office of president in the November 2024 general election, according to WTAE. The alleges Pope submitted a mail-in ballot in Alaska around Oct. 18, 2024, and a mail-in ballot for the same office in Pennsylvania around Oct. 22, 2024, WTAE reported. The government further alleges he "knowingly and willfully" signed a false declaration with the Pennsylvania ballot stating that he was qualified to vote and had not already voted in the election. These are allegations by the government, not findings by a court. Pope has been and has not been tried, and he is presumed innocent unless and until the government proves the charge. No court has weighed the evidence, no plea has been reported, and nothing in this matter has been decided. WTAE reported that the offense carries a statutory maximum of . That figure is the maximum a sentence could reach if there were ever a conviction; there has been none, and any sentence would be set by a judge. The facts available do not indicate whether Pope has entered a plea or has legal representation, and no court date has been reported. The case remains open and unresolved as of this reporting. Readers encountering this story later should not assume an outcome: no verdict, dismissal or other resolution has been reported.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 115 Aug 2026, 17:16current

    First published.

  2. Version 115 Aug 2026, 06:25current

    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.