Cary Ann Patterson’s voter registration reached an Ohio election board in 2005. Federal prosecutors allege that the British citizen voted in at least 10 elections, including November 2024. Twenty-one years after that registration, she faces a federal charge.
I’d like to know when officials first had enough information to question her eligibility.
The October 6 announcement also names Arshed Zuberi, a Pakistani national accused of voting in at least six elections, and Eliza M. Moss, a Philippine citizen accused of voting in several primaries and general elections. All three are lawful permanent residents, and their registration records allegedly included declarations of U.S. citizenship.
From the DOJ:
In the Northern District of Ohio, Arshed Zuberi, 69, a Pakistani national with lawful permanent resident status, has been charged by criminal complaint with illegally voting in a federal election as an alien. He allegedly registered to vote in September 2015 and August 2016. On voter registration forms, Zuberi’s signature appears next to the declaration “I declare under penalty of election falsification I am a citizen of the United States.” Voting records from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections show that he voted in at least six elections.
A criminal complaint has also been filed in the Northern District of Ohio charging Eliza M. Moss, 63, a citizen of the Philippines with lawful permanent resident status, with unlawfully voting in a federal election as an alien. According to state of Ohio and Ashtabula County voting records, Moss registered to vote in September 2004 and in February 2023.
On voter registration forms, her signature appears next to the declaration “I declare under penalty of election falsification I am a citizen of the United States.” Moss allegedly voted in several primary and general elections. According to the criminal complaint, Moss told investigators that the person who helped fill out her registration told her that she could vote despite not being a citizen.
Moss told investigators that someone helping complete her registration said she could vote despite lacking citizenship. Looking at her situation, I have questions.
Who provided that advice? Was it an election worker, a registration volunteer, or someone else? The announcement doesn’t identify the helper.
Voting repeatedly, if proven, makes the registration history central to this issue. Each additional election would raise another question about whether officials had the records, authority, and procedures needed to detect an ineligible voter.
Ohio’s recent history offers some context.
In December 2025, the secretary of state’s office announced an agreement that provides expanded access to federal citizenship records through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system, known as SAVE. The announced terms included free access, bulk verification requests, and supporting data for citizenship checks.
The office described the agreement as the result of litigation begun against the Biden administration in October 2024 after requests for increased access went unanswered or were denied. Federal cooperation is part of the accountability question here. States need usable information to check declarations made on registration forms.
We still don’t know whether those earlier access limits delayed detection in these particular cases. Connecting that dispute to these defendants would require records showing when officials sought their information and what responses they received.
Ohio law effective March 20 now requires citizenship reviews at least monthly using motor vehicle information and SAVE. The secretary must send findings to county election boards and direct further investigation by the election integrity unit. County boards have responsibility for acting on those referrals.
The state should be able to explain how those steps worked here. When was each registration flagged? When did the county receive the referral? Was the registration canceled before the criminal case began?
A clear timeline would show where detection improved and where delays persisted.
A database query requires additional research. Federal SAVE guidance explains that an initial response requesting further verification doesn’t itself establish ineligibility. Officials must complete the process rather than treat an unresolved result as a verdict.
Ohio also requires written cancellation notices explaining the reason and how to correct an error. A registration canceled incorrectly must be restored and treated as though it was never canceled. Eligible citizens deserve that protection.
The left will say these charges don’t establish widespread fraud or a changed election outcome. Despite the fact that they warrant a careful examination of the registrations, the alleged ballots, and the checks, it took charges to finally bring the situation under scrutiny.
I want prosecutors to prove their cases, and election officials to explain the timeline. Ohio voters deserve to know whether the next ineligible registration is caught before the next ballot is cast.