FirstAlerts

Five Charged in Three States with Illegal Voting and Fraudulent Registration

Federal prosecutors announced charges against five individuals in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Wisconsin related to the 2022 or 2024 elections.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 5, 2026, 1:32 p.m. ET
Federal prosecutors announced charges on September 4, 2026, against five individuals in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Wisconsin for allegedly voting illegally in the 2022 or 2024 elections. The charges were detailed in a Department of Justice press release. In the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Thomas Holtzman, 68, and his wife Marisol Guzman, 50, both of Carlisle, were indicted on charges related to Guzman allegedly voting as an alien in the 2024 election. Guzman is with voting as an alien; Holtzman, a U.S. citizen, is with false statement of citizenship in order to vote and aiding and abetting, and fraudulent registration and aiding and abetting. Katya Rodriguez, 30, an illegal alien from Mexico living in Harrisburg, was indicted on charges of false statement of citizenship, fraudulent registration, and voting as an alien in the 2024 election. In the District of New Jersey, Mercedes Alexandra Cardoso of Union County was with voting by an alien in a federal election. According to the complaint, Cardoso, a non-citizen who entered the U.S. from Ecuador on a B-2 visa, allegedly registered to vote online and falsely certified U.S. citizenship, then cast a ballot in the June 2024 primary election. In the Western District of Wisconsin, Jesus Javier Jurado Garcia, 25, an illegal alien from Mexico living in Beloit, was on September 2 with illegally voting as an alien in the November 2022 election. The charges are accusations; all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 15 Sept 2026, 17:32current

    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.