Skip to content
Sign in
Politics · Global

Minnesota prosecutor charges O’Keefe and Higby over polling-place video

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty charged James O’Keefe and Cameron Higby with unlawful voting and identity theft over footage from Minnesota polling places. Her office said they sought to sow doubt in voting systems; neither man cast a ballot.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 4 outlets' reporting · Article text read from 1 of 4 outletsHow it's made

View timeline · 6 entries
4 outlets2 regionsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: MixedL 1 · C 1 · R 1 · 1 unrated
Updat3 graphic: United States
Updat3 graphic · Map data: Natural Earth Natural Earth (public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • The footage showed Higby entering Minnesota polling places during the state’s August primary in a disguise and demonstrating the voter-vouching procedure.
  • The Minnesota Secretary of State’s website says a registered voter can vouch for up to eight other people.
  • The article says neither O’Keefe nor Higby voted.
  • Moriarty said journalists conducting undercover investigations must identify themselves as journalists inside polling places.
  • A press release from the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office said the men posted videos to try to sow doubt about Minnesota’s voting systems.

The brief

Minneapolis prosecutors charged James O’Keefe and Cameron Higby with felony offenses in an election-related case, according to Breitbart. MPR News’ headline also says the two were charged in connection with Minnesota’s primary, while Raw Story’s headline identifies O’Keefe as charged with unlawful voting. The headlines do not provide further details about the charges.

Breitbart says the case concerns footage Higby recorded inside Minnesota polling locations during the state’s August primary. The outlet describes the video as showing Higby entering polling places and presenting the activity as a demonstration of a potential weakness in election procedures.

It says the footage focused on a rule under which a registered voter could vouch for another person’s eligibility, provided both were from the same precinct. A prosecutor quoted by Breitbart said people conducting undercover journalism inside polling places must identify themselves as journalists, and said O’Keefe and Higby did not identify themselves that way.

The prosecutor’s statement presents identification in the polling place as the relevant requirement; the account does not quote a court ruling on whether the men violated that requirement. The prosecutor also rejected political orientation as a basis for deciding whether to bring felony charges.

Breitbart quotes her saying that being offensive is not itself illegal and that prosecutors should not let a person’s political leanings or purpose affect the charging decision. She added that attempts to disrupt or deceive election workers would not be tolerated.

The source’s account links the charges to the conduct it describes inside polling locations and to the prosecutor’s explanation of journalist identification and charging decisions. The headlines characterize the case differently: Raw Story calls it unlawful voting and frames it as an election stunt that backfired, while MPR News labels the charges voter fraud.

Those are headline descriptions; the article text supplied here does not give the formal charge names or a court’s findings. The immediate legal status reported is that O’Keefe and Higby have been charged.

The prosecutor’s comments describe the standards she says apply to journalists in polling places and explain her stated approach to charging decisions; no court outcome or next procedural date is given in the available reporting.

Why it matters

  • The case concerns election workers and conduct inside Minnesota polling places; the prosecutor specifically warned against attempts to disrupt or deceive them.
  • The video focused on a Minnesota procedure allowing a registered voter to vouch for another person’s eligibility within the same precinct.
  • The prosecutor said journalists must identify themselves while conducting undercover investigations in polling places, making that requirement central to her stated account of the charges.

What to watch next

  • Whether prosecutors or court records identify the formal charges against O’Keefe and Higby.
  • Whether a court rules on the prosecutor’s stated requirement that undercover journalists identify themselves in polling places.
  • Whether the case proceeds to a hearing or other court decision; no date is stated.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
4 source articles · 4 unique outlets
Outlet political mix: Mixed· 1 Left · 1 Center · 1 Right · 1 unrated
Where the outlets are based: US/Canada 50% · Asia 25% · Other 25%
Outlet political mix
Mixed
Left
Center
Right
1 outlet
1 outlet
1 outlet
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
4 unique outletsDominant coverage: US/Canada
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

Updat3 does not yet have enough full reports to compare how outlets framed this story.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law creating a campaign-free zone around polling places in Burson v. Freeman.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  2. In 2009, O’Keefe and Hannah Giles made undercover recordings at ACORN offices; the recordings prompted congressional scrutiny and the organization’s eventual closure.
    Background · from our historical context
  3. Project Veritas, the organization he founded in 2010, became known for undercover recordings of political and media figures.
    Background · from our historical context
  4. ACORN announced it would close its operations.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  5. In January 2010, O’Keefe pleaded guilty to entering a federal building under false pretenses in connection with a plan involving Senator Mary Landrieu’s office.
    Background · from our historical context
  6. The Supreme Court struck down Minnesota’s ban on political apparel in polling places in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3

How we got here

Minnesota’s rules for journalists inside polling places were shaped by a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision about political expression at the polls. In *Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky*, decided June 14, 2018, the Court struck down Minnesota’s ban on wearing “political” apparel in polling places, ruling that the state had not supplied workable standards for enforcing it.

Section 211B.11 bars political campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place, with limited exceptions. In *Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District* (1969), the Supreme Court held that students’ silent political expression could receive First Amendment protection, though the case did not concern elections or polling places. In *Burson v.

Original sources

2 of 4 articles · US/Canada · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.