“Under Minnesota’s Statutes § 201.061, a registered voter can sign an affidavit affirming that they know another individual resides in the same precinct, allowing that person to register at the polls without presenting standard proof of residence. One registered voter can vouch for up to eight people,” O’Keefe said.
Rather than simply discussing the law, O’Keefe and Higby decided to see how election workers would apply it in practice.
“We wanted to find out what this actually looks like inside a polling place and how far election workers would let us take it,” he said.
For the undercover operation, O’Keefe wore a thobe while Higby appeared in a black burka. O’Keefe also adopted an exaggerated foreign accent as the two visited polling locations and questioned workers about Minnesota’s vouching process.
At one location, O’Keefe asked whether he could vouch for individuals who were not yet registered.
“I have a question about the vouching program, yeah? Vouching? I can vouch for them but they are not registered,” O’Keefe asked the poll workers.
WATCH:
“Yeah, that’s fine,” the poll workers said.
O’Keefe then pushed further, asking how many additional people could potentially be vouched for.
“Ahhh good. Can I bring five more” O’Keefe asked the poll workers.
“Up to eight people,” she said.
“Up to eight? Okay, that’s a good thing,” O’Keefe said.
Another exchange captured in the undercover footage appeared to spell out the concept even more directly.
“If you’re all in the same precinct and you are already registered, you can vouch for them as ID. Eight people,” a poll worker told James O’Keefe.
“You’re the ID,” the election worker told O’Keefe.
“I am the ID!” O’Keefe said.
The episode quickly escalated from an undercover political stunt into a potential legal fight.
Simon condemned the investigators’ conduct following Minnesota’s August 11 primary and disclosed that law enforcement was reviewing what happened.
According to Simon, the two men did not expose a loophole in Minnesota elections. Instead, he argued that they misrepresented themselves while interfering with polling places and demonstrated a misunderstanding of a decades-old election procedure.
“During Minnesota’s Primary on August 11, 2026, members of a widely discredited Florida-based political group visited several polling places in Minneapolis impersonating Minnesota voters. Dressed in what they called ‘Muslim’ costumes, and imitating foreign accents, they falsely claimed to be registered Minnesota voters.
“The group used concealed cameras to record their interactions with poll workers, releasing a heavily edited video of their encounters. Their apparent goal was to cast doubt on one or more Minnesota election laws that have been in force for over fifty years. Instead, they revealed their ignorance of how those laws actually work – while putting themselves in legal jeopardy.
“Poll workers immediately reported these visits to local election officials and law enforcement is reviewing the situation.
“The misconduct by this group is outrageous and totally unacceptable. We have zero tolerance for lying, lawbreaking, and disruptions at our polling places.
Voters deserve better, as do the tens of thousands of our neighbors and friends who serve as poll workers. Our aim, as always, is to ensure that our polling places are islands of calm. Minnesota laws are there to ensure that outcome.”
The response puts Simon and the undercover investigators on a collision course over two very different questions.
Simon’s office is focusing on how O’Keefe and Higby conducted themselves inside polling locations and whether their actions crossed legal boundaries. O’Keefe, meanwhile, is focusing attention on what election workers told him about vouching and whether the safeguards surrounding the practice are strong enough.
That distinction is important.
The footage does not, by itself, establish that fraudulent votes were actually cast through Minnesota’s vouching system. But O’Keefe argues that his encounters raise legitimate questions about how much responsibility can be placed on the word of a single registered voter.
His video also puts an unusually vivid spotlight on a system unfamiliar to many Americans: under the circumstances provided by Minnesota law, one eligible voter can help establish the residence of multiple Election Day registrants.
Critics are likely to ask whether that creates an unnecessary vulnerability. Defenders of the law will counter that vouching has rules of its own and that selectively recorded conversations do not prove those safeguards can be successfully circumvented.
O’Keefe, for his part, is not retreating after Simon’s warning. He defended the investigation and emphasized that election workers themselves explained that he could potentially vouch for as many as eight people.
That means the controversy is unlikely to end with the undercover video.
Instead, Minnesota officials may now have to contend with two issues at once: whether O’Keefe and Higby violated any laws while conducting their investigation, and whether the attention generated by their stunt will fuel renewed demands for lawmakers to examine the state’s voter-vouching rules.
Simon clearly believes the investigators crossed a line.
O’Keefe and Higby appear equally determined to argue that Minnesota’s election system — not their investigation of it — is what deserves scrutiny.
And with law enforcement now reviewing the episode, the political fight over what happened inside those Minneapolis polling places may only be getting started.
