Investitive journalists charged with unlawful voting and identity theft after testing Minnesota’s voter registration system, despite neither casting a ballot.
By Lucretia Hughes
MINNEAPOLIS — Investigative journalist James O’Keefe and conservative commentator Cam Higby are facing felony charges in Minnesota after conducting an undercover investigation into the state’s election procedures, raising questions about election security, investigative journalism and the legal boundaries of undercover reporting.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty announced Wednesday that O’Keefe, 42, and Higby, 26, had each been charged with unlawful voting and identity theft in connection with an undercover operation conducted during Minnesota’s Aug. 11 primary election.
The charges stem from videos in which the two men visited polling locations, used names belonging to registered voters and questioned election workers about Minnesota’s voter registration requirements.
Neither O’Keefe nor Higby actually cast a ballot, and neither signed the voter eligibility oath required to complete the registration process.
Prosecutors nevertheless maintain that the men’s actions violated state election laws.
Undercover Investigation Targeted Minnesota’s Voting System
O’Keefe, founder of O’Keefe Media Group and formerly Project Veritas, has built his career conducting undercover investigations involving government agencies, political organizations and public institutions.
During the August operation, O’Keefe and Higby visited multiple polling locations in Hennepin County while wearing disguises and recording interactions with election workers.
Their stated objective was to test Minnesota’s voter registration procedures, particularly a provision allowing registered voters to verify another person’s residency.
The procedure, commonly known as voter vouching, allows an eligible individual to register at a polling location when another registered voter from the same precinct confirms the individual’s address.
Under Minnesota law, a registered voter may vouch for up to eight individuals.
The journalists sought to determine how election workers would respond when individuals presented themselves without conventional identification and attempted to use the vouching process.
The resulting videos were published online in August.
Prosecutors Say False Identities Crossed Legal Line
According to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, O’Keefe and Higby provided election workers with names belonging to registered Minnesota voters without those individuals’ permission.
Prosecutors allege the conduct violated laws prohibiting individuals from intentionally misrepresenting their identities when applying for ballots.
Moriarty acknowledged that the men did not complete the voting process.
However, she argued that signing the final oath or successfully casting a ballot was not necessary for the alleged offenses to occur.
Election workers reportedly became suspicious of the interactions and alerted election officials, who referred the matter for investigation.
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon defended the response of election workers and said attempts to deceive or disrupt polling locations would not be tolerated.
The charges include one felony count of unlawful voting and one felony count of identity theft against each defendant.
Each charge carries a potential maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The men have not been convicted, and the allegations remain subject to judicial proceedings.
Higby Denies Wrongdoing, Calls Charges Political
Higby publicly rejected the allegations following Wednesday’s announcement.
He maintained that the undercover operation was intended to expose weaknesses in Minnesota’s election procedures rather than facilitate fraudulent voting.
In a statement, Higby said:
“I never voted, I never signed an affidavit and I never violated a law.”
Higby also characterized the prosecution as politically motivated, arguing that the charges could discourage independent journalists from investigating election systems.
O’Keefe’s organization similarly defended the operation, describing it as an attempt to test the practical limits of Minnesota’s voter-vouching rules.
The organization said its investigators wanted to determine how election workers would respond, what safeguards they would explain and how far the process could proceed.
The group emphasized that its investigators did not cast ballots.
Election Security or Criminal Conduct?
The case highlights a dispute over the distinction between investigating potential election vulnerabilities and violating election laws during an undercover operation.
Supporters of O’Keefe’s investigative methods argue that journalists sometimes employ deception to uncover information that government agencies and public institutions might otherwise conceal.
They contend that the absence of an actual fraudulent vote is an important factor in evaluating the seriousness of the alleged conduct.
Prosecutors, however, maintain that election laws prohibit individuals from using other voters’ identities during the ballot application process, regardless of whether a ballot is ultimately cast.
Minnesota officials also argue that the response of election workers demonstrates that safeguards functioned as intended.
The case does not establish that fraudulent votes were successfully cast or that Minnesota’s election results were compromised.
Minnesota’s Vouching Law Under Scrutiny
Minnesota is among the states allowing eligible voters to register on Election Day through several methods, including residency verification by another registered voter.
The vouching procedure is intended to accommodate individuals who may lack updated identification or documentation showing their current address.
Supporters say the system helps ensure eligible citizens are not prevented from voting because of documentation difficulties.
Critics argue that relying on another individual’s verification creates potential opportunities for abuse if safeguards are inadequate.
According to the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office, fewer than 0.6% of votes cast during the November 2024 election involved the vouching procedure.
State officials maintain that the process includes legal safeguards, including sworn statements and penalties for providing false information.
O’Keefe and Higby’s investigation sought to challenge whether those safeguards adequately prevent individuals from misrepresenting their identities.
Questions About Investigative Journalism
The prosecution also raises questions about the legal protections afforded to journalists conducting undercover investigations.
Although investigative reporters may use concealed cameras or assumed identities in certain circumstances, journalistic intent does not automatically exempt them from laws governing identity theft or election procedures.
Whether the actions of O’Keefe and Higby satisfy the elements of the charged offenses will ultimately be determined through the judicial process.
The defendants may argue that their actions were investigative rather than attempts to obtain fraudulent ballots.
Prosecutors are expected to focus on the alleged use of registered voters’ identities during the application process.
The dispute could become a significant test of how election laws apply to journalists who intentionally challenge government procedures.
Court Proceedings Scheduled for November
O’Keefe and Higby are scheduled to make their initial court appearances Nov. 16.
Neither man had entered a plea as of Wednesday’s announcement.
The case arrives amid continuing national debates over election integrity, voter identification requirements and public confidence in voting systems.
For Minnesota officials, the prosecution represents an effort to enforce laws designed to protect voters and election workers.
For O’Keefe, Higby and their supporters, the charges raise concerns about whether investigative journalists could face criminal prosecution for testing election procedures.
The central legal question is not whether the men successfully voted — authorities acknowledge they did not — but whether their use of other voters’ identities while beginning the application process constituted criminal conduct under Minnesota law.
The answer will now be determined in court.
Sources: Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Minnesota Secretary of State, Associated Press, Minnesota Public Radio and court records, Oct. 28, 2026.
Original article
Comments