Elections happen once every five years. This one mattered.
Only 17.8% of eligible Peruvian voters in the US participated in the first round, with Florida, California, New Jersey, and New York hosting the largest communities. Electoral authorities debunked false claims circulating on social media about venue changes, transient voting tables, and unconfirmed polling locations across multiple states.
- 309,602 eligible Peruvian voters in the U.S., only 17.8% voted in April
- 23 polling locations across 17 states and Puerto Rico for June 6 runoff
- Florida had 58,165 voters; California 52,847; New Jersey 51,827; New York 43,287
- False claims spread on social media about venue changes and transient polling tables
Peru's 309,602 eligible voters in the US will cast ballots in 23 polling locations across 17 states Sunday, with authorities combating widespread misinformation about voting procedures and venue changes.
Nearly 310,000 Peruvians living in the United States were eligible to vote in their country's presidential runoff on June 6, 2021, but getting them to the polls proved as much a battle against misinformation as against simple apathy. In the first round of voting two months earlier, only about one in five eligible voters in the U.S. had bothered to show up. Now, as the contest between Pedro Castillo and Keiko Fujimori tightened into a genuine toss-up, Peru's electoral authorities faced a different problem: false claims spreading across social media that voting locations had changed, that new types of polling stations would open, that some cities hadn't even secured venues.
The numbers told the story of a diaspora worth fighting for. Across the globe, nearly a million Peruvians could vote from abroad, but the United States held by far the largest concentration—309,602 eligible voters scattered across 17 states and Puerto Rico, with ballots to be cast at 23 locations. Florida alone had 58,165 voters, followed by California with 52,847, New Jersey with 51,827, and New York with 43,287. These were not marginal numbers in a close race. Yet the 77 percent no-show rate in April suggested that distance, inconvenience, or simple disengagement might keep many home again.
The misinformation campaign was specific and persistent. In Miami, rumors circulated that the Miami Beach Convention Center—the designated polling site—had never been rented, that the whole thing was a setup to suppress the vote. The Peruvian consulate had to issue repeated clarifications: the venue was confirmed, the address was 1901 Convention Center Drive, and they had arranged 163 polling tables to handle 48,900 voters. Similar false audio messages spread through WhatsApp and Facebook claiming that transient voting tables—temporary polling stations for people without a fixed address—would be available in the U.S. for the first time. The National Electoral Office issued a direct denial: the same 23 locations from April would be used, with only rare exceptions. No new tables. No surprises.
Hugo de Zela, Peru's ambassador to the United States, released a video on Thursday to cut through the noise. All 13 Peruvian consulates had secured their venues, he said. Voting would run from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Health and safety protocols would be observed. He framed it as a civic duty and a celebration—elections happen once every five years, he reminded voters, and this one mattered. He also addressed a practical concern: voters could bring expired ID cards. Missing the first round or owing electoral fines would not prevent participation, though a valid national ID was required.
The logistics were substantial. In Tampa, 10 polling tables would operate at the Tampa Convention Center. In Los Angeles, voters would go to Santa Anita Park Convention Center. San Francisco had the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. San Diego, the LCT Bayside Pavilion. New Jersey's 51,827 eligible voters would vote at the Meadowlands Exhibition Center in Secaucus, with voting areas organized by surname ranges and color-coded sections. New York's 43,287 voters would use the same Brooklyn venue—Venue NYC on Butler Street—that had worked in April. Washington D.C., with 33,526 eligible voters, would use FedEx Forum in Maryland, and the consulate there urged voters to pre-register their polling table assignment online to avoid confusion and long lines.
The Peruvian consul in New York, Marita Landaveri, made a direct appeal in a video message. Masks were mandatory, she said. Facial shields were recommended. But more than that, she wanted people to understand what was at stake in simply showing up. This was a festival of democracy, she called it—a chance to choose the country's leadership for the next five years. It did not matter if someone had skipped April's voting or had unpaid electoral penalties. What mattered was bringing a valid ID and casting a ballot. The message was simple: come.
As Sunday approached, the Peruvian diplomatic corps had done what it could. The venues were locked in. The addresses were public. The false claims had been addressed, though whether that would reach everyone who had heard the rumors remained uncertain. The real test would come on election day—whether the lessons of April's 77 percent absence would be learned, or whether distance and doubt would keep most of the diaspora home again.
Citações Notáveis
Elections happen once every five years and it is important that all who can come that day. It does not matter if you did not participate on April 11 or if you have unpaid electoral fines. That does not prevent you from voting, but you must have your original ID, even if it is expired.— Marita Landaveri, Peruvian consul in New York
Our consulates will provide all necessary facilities so that Peruvians residing in the United States can exercise their right to vote, including respect for health and safety protocols.— Hugo de Zela, Peru's ambassador to the United States
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did so few Peruvians in the U.S. vote in April? Was it just inconvenience?
It was probably a mix of things. Some people didn't think their vote mattered from abroad. Others didn't know where to go or didn't trust the process. But the bigger issue for June was that misinformation made people unsure whether the locations had even changed or if voting was really happening.
The false claims about the Miami venue—where did those come from? Who was spreading them?
The source doesn't say. It just notes that audio messages were circulating on WhatsApp and Facebook. In a close election, it's hard to know if it's organized disinformation or just people sharing rumors they heard. Either way, it worked—people were confused enough that the consulate had to issue multiple clarifications.
Did the authorities think they could actually overcome the misinformation by June 6th?
They seemed to be trying. The ambassador released a video. The consulates posted on social media. They set up a website where people could check their polling table assignment ahead of time. But you can't force people to look at that information. The real question was whether the people who heard the false claims would also hear the corrections.
What strikes you about the consul in New York calling it a "festival of democracy"?
It's interesting because it's trying to reframe voting as something celebratory and important, not just a bureaucratic task. She's acknowledging that people are tired, that some didn't vote in April, that some owe fines. She's saying none of that matters—what matters is showing up. It's an emotional appeal, not a logistical one.
If only 17.8 percent voted in April, what made anyone think June would be different?
The runoff itself. In April, there were many candidates and it felt abstract. By June, it was just two people—Castillo and Fujimori—and the race was genuinely tight. That tends to drive turnout. But the misinformation campaign was a real threat to that. If people didn't believe the voting was actually happening, they wouldn't show up no matter how close the race was.
What does it tell us that Peru had to set up 23 separate locations just to serve 310,000 voters?
It tells us that diaspora voting is logistically hard. You can't just open one polling place in New York. You need locations in Florida, California, Texas, everywhere. And you need enough tables and staff to handle the crowds if people actually show up. It's expensive and complicated, which is probably why some countries don't bother.