On August 19, 2025, New Jersey Congressman Jeff Van Drew ignited a new wave of controversy over election integrity when he appeared on Fox Business and Fox News, making a claim that left both viewers and political observers baffled. During the segment, Van Drew insisted he had spoken to "large numbers" of dead people who had mail-in ballots sent to them during the 2020 election. He described the election as a "debacle," alleging that "sometimes people would have multiple ballots sent to different addresses. Other times, people who are passed away—these are real people I spoke to, large numbers of them, and it’s indicative of what happened around the country."
Such statements, though not new in the broader landscape of American political discourse, took on an odd twist with Van Drew’s assertion that he had personally spoken to deceased voters. The claim, echoing long-standing myths about voter fraud, quickly went viral, sparking both ridicule and debate across social media platforms and news outlets.
Van Drew’s comments came just a day after President Donald Trump pledged to issue an executive order banning mail-in voting ahead of the 2026 midterms. Trump’s post on Truth Social asserted that the United States was the only country practicing mail-in voting, a claim contradicted by the fact that 34 countries around the world use some form of mail-in ballots. According to The Daily Beast, Van Drew has made voter fraud a persistent theme of his tenure in the House since switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party in 2020, after being elected as a Democrat in 2018. He notably voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
Van Drew’s home state of New Jersey has permitted "no-excuse" absentee mail-in voting for years, allowing any voter to request a mail-in ballot without providing a reason. In the 2024 general election, New Jerseyans cast approximately 760,000 mail-in ballots out of 4.3 million total ballots, and Van Drew himself won re-election that year with 58.1% of the vote.
Despite Van Drew’s rhetoric, election experts and researchers have consistently found little evidence to support widespread fraud related to mail-in voting. A 2020 study by researchers at Stanford University, cited by The Daily Beast, examined elections in Washington state—where universal mail-in voting has been in place for years—and discovered that only 0.0003 percent of votes cast between 2011 and 2018 were potentially suspicious. This data strongly counters the narrative that mail-in voting is "ripe for abuse."
Nevertheless, Van Drew doubled down on his claims during the Fox segment, his face reddening as he railed against what he described as systemic vulnerabilities. "In general, it is ripe for abuse," he said, a sentiment that has become a rallying cry among certain factions of the Republican Party. Yet, many of his assertions—especially the notion of conversing with dead voters—were quickly met with skepticism and mockery online.
Social media users wasted no time responding to Van Drew’s remarks. One user quipped, "And so the lies begin…. Just like the large numbers of dead people drawing social security right?" Another pointed out, "Classic election-fraud propaganda. Ballots mailed ≠ ballots cast. If a ballot is mailed to someone who has died, it’s flagged when returned – cross-checked against death records. ‘Stop mail voting’ is only about suppressing votes." Others, like commentator Keith Olbermann, jabbed at Van Drew’s party switch: "Elected as a democrat, betrayed his voters, now MAGA. Of course he’s talked to the living dead – they flipped him."
The online reaction was not limited to sarcasm. Several users emphasized the well-established safeguards in place to prevent ballots cast by deceased individuals. "Dead people don’t vote. If a ballot is mailed to someone who’s passed away, it’s automatically flagged and rejected. Van Drew is recycling a myth that’s been debunked every election cycle," wrote one commenter. The consensus among critics was clear: the narrative of dead voters influencing elections is a myth that resurfaces regularly, despite repeated debunkings by election officials and independent analysts.
Election law experts also weighed in on the broader push by President Trump to ban mail-in voting through executive order. UCLA professor Richard Hasen, writing on his blog, stated unequivocally, "The Constitution does not give the President any control over federal elections." This sentiment was echoed by other legal scholars, who noted that the administration of federal elections is delegated to the states, and any attempt by the White House to unilaterally alter voting procedures would be unconstitutional.
The controversy over mail-in voting has not been confined to New Jersey. Earlier in August 2025, a Republican representative from Wyoming faced a hostile crowd at a town hall meeting when she defended Trump’s attacks on mail-in ballots. According to The Daily Beast, she was drowned out by boos, highlighting the deep divisions and strong feelings the issue continues to provoke across the country.
Van Drew’s remarks also reignited discussion about his political journey. Having been elected as a Democrat in 2018, he switched to the Republican Party just a year later, aligning himself with the MAGA movement and becoming a vocal supporter of President Trump. His tenure has been marked by repeated claims of voter fraud, even as he benefited from New Jersey’s mail-in voting system in his successful re-election bid.
As the 2026 midterms approach, the debate over mail-in voting shows no signs of abating. While some Republican leaders, including Van Drew and Trump, continue to stoke fears of fraud, election officials and researchers maintain that the system is secure and that instances of fraud are exceedingly rare. The Stanford study’s findings, along with the robust procedures for flagging and rejecting ballots from deceased individuals, provide a strong factual basis for confidence in the integrity of mail-in voting.
Still, the persistence of these claims demonstrates the enduring power of misinformation in shaping public perceptions. The spectacle of a congressman asserting he’s spoken to dead voters may provoke laughter and disbelief, but it also underscores the challenges facing American democracy in an era of deep political polarization and rampant conspiracy theories.
For voters in New Jersey and beyond, the episode serves as a reminder to scrutinize bold claims, demand evidence, and look to the data—no matter how spirited the debate becomes.
