Pennsylvania Man Charged With Voting Twice in 2024 Presidential Election
Prosecutors allege Jeffrey Pope, 65, submitted presidential mail-in ballots in both Alaska and Pennsylvania. The charge is unresolved and he has not been tried.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 15, 2026, 2:25 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 15, 2026, 1:16 p.m. ET
Pennsylvania Man Charged With Voting Twice for President in 2024
Jeffrey Pope, 65, of Apollo, Pennsylvania, has been charged in connection with allegedly voting twice for president in the November 2024 general election. The case was brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
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 up to 10 years in prison, a fine of around $250,000 or both. 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.
Aug 15, 2026, 2:25 a.m. ETFirst report
Pennsylvania Man Charged With Voting Twice in 2024 Presidential Election
Federal prosecutors have charged Jeffrey Pope, 65, of Apollo, Pennsylvania, with voting twice for the office of president in the November 2024 general election, according to WTAE.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania 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 charged 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 up to 10 years in prison, a fine of around $250,000 or both. 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
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 17:16current
First published.
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 06:25current
First published.
- Version 117 Aug 2026, 12:52current
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.