FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Pennsylvania Man Charged With Voting Twice for President in 2024

Federal prosecutors say Jeffrey Pope of Apollo cast mail-in ballots for president in both Alaska and Pennsylvania. The charge has not been resolved, and he is presumed innocent.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 15, 2026, 1:16 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

Jeffrey Pope, 65, of Apollo, Pennsylvania, has been in connection with allegedly voting twice for president in the November 2024 general election. The case was brought by the . The government alleges that Pope voted for the office of president in both Alaska and Pennsylvania in that election, submitting 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. Prosecutors also allege that 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 at the charging stage. Pope has not been tried, no court has ruled on the accusations, and he is presumed innocent unless and until he is proven guilty. The matter remains unresolved; the available record does not indicate how Pope has responded to the charge, whether he has entered a plea, or when any hearing or trial is scheduled. Anyone encountering this account later should not assume the case has been decided. The charges carry a statutory maximum of . Statutory maximums are ceilings set by law, not a prediction of any sentence, and they would come into play only if there were a conviction.

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.