Election Laws & Policies Claim 1

In late September 2024 numerous posts began circulating that claimed the United States Department of Justice was suing states that were attempting to remove illegal voters from voter rolls. This claim often had no accompanying context to explain it, nor did it cite a source.

Verdict: MISLEADING/MISSING CONTEXT

This claim refers to an announcement by Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen that he would seek to purge "3,251 individuals who are registered to vote in Alabama who have been issued noncitizen identification numbers by the Department of Homeland Security" from the state's voter rolls prior to the election. (Alabama Secretary of State: "Secretary of State Wes Allen Implements Process to Remove Noncitizens Registered to Vote in Alabama") This was followed by numerous reports that the Department of Justice was suing the state of Alabama for purging its voter rolls. See, for example, the NPR article "Justice Department sues Alabama, claiming it purged voters too close to the election" and The Washington Post article "Justice Dept. sues Alabama over program aimed at removing voters."

As implied by the NPR article and as confirmed on the Department of Justice site ("Justice Department Sues Alabama for Violating Federal Law’s Prohibition on Systematic Efforts to Remove Voters Within 90 Days of an Election"), the Alabama Secretary of State's action constituted a clear violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which places "clear and unequivocal restrictions on systematic list maintenance efforts that fall within 90 days of an election." Their action therefore had nothing to do with an attempt to allow unauthorized immigrants to vote, but rather enforcement of existing laws.

Section 8(c)(2)(A) of that act clearly states, "A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters."

Notably, Allen's own post acknowledged that "it is possible that some of the individuals who were issued noncitizen identification numbers have, since receiving them, become naturalized citizens and are, therefore, eligible to vote." Furthermore, as noncitizens are prohibited from voting in national elections, it is likely that they would not attempt to cast a ballot. Any who attempt to do so would be flagged during the ballot verification process and prosecuted for voter fraud.

Election Laws & Policies Claim 2

Posts claim that an announcement in Arizona revealed that 218,000 voters without proof of citizenship were on the state's voter rolls began circulating online. These posts typically did not include any context beyond claims that these were noncitizens and that their votes would be counted.

Verdict: MISLEADING/MISSING CONTEXT

On September 30th, 2024 the Arizona Secretary of State site announced that "approximately 218,000" individuals were affected by a data coding oversight. (See "Arizona Voter Data Coding Oversight Updated") More specifically, it revealed that the issue "pertains to misclassification of voters with a driver’s license issued before 1996." That page links to an earlier announcement detailing the initial discovery of approximately half that number affected by the same issue. The reason for the error was further clarified by the governor's office as quoted in a local news report: "'The AVID system was programmed to query the duplicate issuance date and would not alert the county that the license was originally issued before 10/1/1996'...This flaw has existed since 2004."

Bringing together all of this information from these sources, the following facts can be confirmed regarding the issue:

1. The coding error only affects those with driver's licenses issued prior to October 1st, 1996. Anyone who moved to Arizona after that time would not be affected.

2. After an initial estimate of approximately 98,000 individuals being affected by the error, the total number was updated to 218,000.

3. That total includes "79,000 Republicans, 61,000 Democrats, and 76,000 Other Party (OTH)." In other words, regardless of how many are eligible or ineligible to vote, the numbers favor the Republicans.

4. There is currently no evidence suggesting that any of those individuals, who "have attested under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens," voted illegally in prior elections. 

5. The Arizona Supreme Court, comprised entirely of Republican appointees, ruled that the individuals could not be purged from voter rolls for this reason and that it would violate the statutes laid out in Proposition 200.

6. Arizona will conduct a full audit of any ballots cast by these individuals as they do for all state voters to ensure that no noncitizens vote in the federal election.

Election Laws & Policies Claim 3

Echoing earlier claims that the Department of Justice was wrongfully suing the state of Alabama for "keeping illegal aliens" on their voter rolls, new claims arose in early October than the same tactic was being used against Virginia. These new posts cited articles that they claim indicated that the Department of Justice was suing because the state "removed non-citizens from the voter rolls."

Verdict: MISLEADING/FALSE

It is true that the Department of Justice sued Virginia for attempting to remove voters from rolls as confirmed in reports such as "Virginia Illegally Removing Voters Before Election, DOJ Says: What We Know" (Newsweek). However, it once again reflects an enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993: "A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters." As reported in  "DOJ sues Virginia over voter roll purge" (The Hill), "In early August, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.) signed an executive order confirming there were 'daily' updates to the voter list." Once these daily updates fell within the 90-day period leading up to the election, they would be in violation of that federal statute.

Additionally, another key point was reported in "Justice Dept. sues Virginia over program aimed at eliminating voters" (The Washington Post): "...a Washington Post review of state court records and interviews with elections officials found no evidence that any noncitizens have tried to vote during his term in Virginia, which does not allow residents who are not citizens to vote in any elections. As few as three people have been prosecuted for illegal voting of any kind in Virginia between Jan. 1, 2022, and July of this year, the records showed. None of those cases involved a question of citizenship."

Therefore, the initial claim regarding the motivation of the Department of Justice is misleading, as it has a responsibility to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, the claim that its actions are driven by the desire to remove illegal voters is false, as there is no evidence to suggest that noncitizens were on the rolls and eligible to vote.

Hurricane Helene & the Government Response Claim 1

The most common type of post related to the hurricane suggests that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were absent and/or not paying attention to the ongoing impact of the hurricane across the affected states.

Verdict: FALSE

Numerous FEMA press releases from September 24th onward demonstrate that President Biden's administration had urged residents to prepare for the storm; approved pre-landfall emergency declarations for Florida, Georgia and North Carolina; and directed FEMA to provide all available resources. For example, on September 24th, this post listed resources and key steps to prepare. That same day, this post showed that federal disaster assistance was already available to Florida despite the hurricane not having touched land yet.  Finally, this post from September 26th details one of several presidential actions approving a state of emergency and authorizing FEMA to direct its resources accordingly.

On September 30th, President Biden indicated that he intended to visit impacted areas provided his presence would not disrupt relief efforts. (AP: "Biden says he hopes to visit Helene-impacted areas this week if it doesn’t impact emergency response") This type of response is in line with those of previous presidents during natural disasters, including Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush.

A list of all aid currently being provided is available on the White House site: "FACT SHEET: Biden-⁠Harris Administration’s Life-Saving and Life-Sustaining Response Efforts to Hurricane Helene."

Hurricane Helene & the Government Response Claim 2

Aid efforts are not present in the affected states, and Joe Biden has refused to approve further aid for areas affected by the hurricane.

Verdict: FALSE

This reflects a common misunderstanding about how funds are approved for disasters, as well as government funding in general. Presidents do not set the annual federal budget, including for agencies like FEMA that fall within their authority. Congress determines the budget, which is then signed or vetoed by the president. In cases in which emergencies occur, it is again Congress that must approve any requested funding that exceeds the existing budget.

In early August 2024 President Biden requested additional funding for FEMA due to the increasing number of natural disasters faced across the United States throughout the 2023-2024 fiscal year. (PBS: "Biden wants an extra $4 billion for disaster relief funding, bringing the total request to $16 billion") It was up to Congress to make a decision about that funding prior to the expiration of government funding on September 30th, the last day of the government's fiscal year.

By September 25th, the day before the hurricane made landfall, Congress voted to extend government funding through December 20th at current levels. However, in order to pass the resolution, the extra funding could not be included, as it was blocked by conservative Republicans who refused to agree even to a lesser amount: "The stopgap spending deal that lawmakers approved Wednesday night failed to include a $10 billion supplemental infusion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency after congressional leaders capitulated to the House’s most conservative fiscal hawks...The last minute exclusion of the aid — which would have been half of what the White House had requested — caught many lawmakers off guard. FEMA is staring down a $2 billion deficit in disaster relief funding that promises to only get worse." (Politico: "Hurricane Helene is here. More disaster aid is not.") The full list of Republicans who voted even against the final measure can be found on the bill's roll call. It includes numerous representatives from the states affected by the hurricane.

This means that FEMA can only provide resources that it has already acquired through existing funding, and it has directed those resources accordingly as detailed in this press release. Individual financial aid for any losses can be requested directly through the government disaster asistance website.

Based on current reports, it is expected that Biden will make another request to Congress for further funding despite the fact that it is currently in recess. (The Hill: "Biden may call Congress back for Hurricane Helene relief funding")

Immigration Laws, Policies & Crime Claim 1

In late September several infographics from Fox News reporting began circulating on social media sites. These all made similar claims: that several hundred thousand non-detained immigrants were convicted of crimes, including serious acts such as homicide and sexual assault. The source for this information, when cited, was "Letter from Patrick Lechleitner ICE Deputy Director" with no additional context.

Verdict: MISLEADING/MISSING CONTEXT

The information being referenced originates in this letter sent by Patrick Lechleitner to Representative Tony Gonzales (R), a Congressional representative from Texas. Gonzales proceeded to post the letter publicly and gave interviews to various news outlets, claiming that the letter proved that the Biden and Harris administration had released hundreds of thousands of dangerous illegal immigrants into the country.

That claim is highly misleading. As reported by the AP ("Trump is pointing to new numbers on migrants with criminal pasts. Here’s what they show"), the numbers cited by Gonzales and media outlets don't represent only the 2021-2024 period, nor do they mean that all of those immigrants are non-detained: "The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, later clarified that the numbers span decades and those not in its custody may be held by a state or local agency. For example, someone serving time in a state prison for murder could be counted as a criminal not in ICE’s custody. They are not being held by federal immigration authorities but they are detained — a distinction ICE didn’t make in its report to Gonzales."

In other words, the numbers shown in the infographic include all immigrants who have not been detained through multiple administrations, including those of Donald Trump, Barack Obama, etc. In addition to the likelihood of many of those immigrants being held in state or local prisons, Lechleitner himself admitted "that ICE is not allowed to release certain noncitizens from the agency’s custody including those convicted of homicide." (Borderreport.com: "ICE released over 435,000 migrants with criminal convictions, data shows")

See "Over 425,000 Migrants Convicted of Crimes Living Outside ICE Detention in US, Agency Says" from AllSides for perspective in how this story was reported in liberal, conservative, and centrist media sources.

Kamala Harris Claim 1

On Thursday, October 10th Kamala Harris participated in a town hall hosted by Univision, a television network that has a predominantly Spanish-speaking audience. During that town hall a camera angle showed Harris speaking while indistinguishable words appear on a screen in front of her. After a few moments the words vanish. Short clips shared by Republicans on social media cut off at that point, and they claim that the video proved that Harris relied on a teleprompter during the town hall, proving her "dishonesty" and "lack of intelligence."

Verdict: FALSE

The moderator of the town hall, Enrique Acevedo, directly debunked this claim on X, stating "The prompter displayed my introduction (in Spanish) and then it switched to a timer. Any claim to the contrary is simply untrue." Univision News President Daniel Coronell similarly wrote on X, "That’s not true. The teleprompter that displays a text written in Spanish was a support element for the town hall moderator. I can tell you this with first-hand knowledge because I was in charge of the television program." High-resolution versions of the video such as this one confirm their assertions, as they show Spanish on the screen while Harris speaks in English.

Both men were quoted in the aptly named PolitiFact article "Teleprompter at Univision town hall was for moderator, not Kamala Harris," which also provides another key point of evidence against the claims: the teleprompter was "visible at several times throughout the debate when Harris was facing away from the device." This is corroborated by several other clips on YouTube such as this one and this one, which show her answering questions while standing in a different spot, facing away from the screen. Still others like this one show her walking and maintaining eye contact with the audience while the screen remains blank at all times. 

In short, Univision representatives have denied the claims, the text on teleprompter in the clip is Spanish rather than English, it turns off while Harris continues talking in the longer videos, and she answers multiple questions while not near it or facing it.