NYT's Own Reporting on Noncitizen Voters Undercuts Its Claim That Noncitizen Voting Is Rare and Its Opposition to Election Safeguards
Source: Brianna Lyman. "NYT: Elections Are Secure. Also, All These Noncitizens Voted." November 3, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author says the New York Times claims noncitizen voting is rare, but then ran a long story about many noncitizens charged with voting illegally. She argues the story shows the system has weak safeguards, so measures like proof of citizenship are needed, and that the Times is wrong to dismiss them.
Conclusion
The New York Times' reporting on noncitizens charged with illegal voting contradicts its assurance that noncitizen voting is extremely rare and its dismissal of Trump's proposed safeguards. The reporting shows that stronger measures, such as proof of citizenship, are necessary.
Premises
- The Times assured readers that noncitizen voting is extremely rare, yet it devoted an entire article to more than 220 people in 28 states charged with voting violations, including noncitizens who allegedly voted illegally.
- The Times framed the defendants sympathetically, emphasizing arrests, shackling, and jail time and downplaying that they allegedly broke the law, even though such consequences are normal for people who commit crimes.
- The defendants' explanations of language barriers and confusion implicitly support the expectation that immigrants learn English, which the Times' opinion pages have criticized.
- Defendants such as Jamil Ahmad assumed election officials would reject ineligible registrations, but the current system relies on a self-attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury with no documentation required, so safeguards are inadequate.
- The Times described Trump's proposals (voter ID, proof of citizenship, mail ballot restrictions) as based on unsubstantiated claims, even though its own reporting shows why such safeguards are needed, and Democrats oppose the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship.
Assumptions
- The existence of a newsworthy number of prosecuted cases is evidence that noncitizen voting is not rare.
- The charged cases represent actual illegal voting, not just allegations, and the defendants' claims of innocent confusion do not change that.
- A Times article that covers noncitizen voting cannot consistently also describe it as rare.
- Documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements would be an effective and proportionate fix for the gaps shown by these cases.
- Prosecution counts and anecdotes are enough to judge prevalence without comparison to total votes cast.
- Inconsistency between the Times' news reporting and opinion pages is relevant to the merits of the policies.