What specific allegations are made against New York election officials in the 2024 lawsuit?
Executive summary
Plaintiffs led by SMART Legislation allege that Rockland County’s 2024 presidential and U.S. Senate tallies contain “statistical anomalies,” that some ballots were not counted for specific candidates (including independent Senate candidate Diane Sare), and that votes for Kamala Harris are inexplicably missing in precincts where other Democratic candidates drew votes — allegations serious enough that a New York Supreme Court judge ordered discovery to proceed [1] [2] [3]. The suit seeks a full hand recount of presidential and Senate ballots and requests documents about alleged irregularities and voting‑machine problems [3] [4].
1. The core allegation: misrecorded and “missing” votes
The complaint asserts that the Rockland County Board of Elections did not accurately record votes — notably that more voters have sworn affidavits saying they voted for Diane Sare than the BOE counted and certified, and that ballots cast for some candidates were not reflected in certified totals [3] [5]. SMART Elections’ news release and local reporting highlight affidavits and exhibits the petitioners say prove the BOE “is not counting all the votes” [5] [3].
2. Statistical anomalies and “unlikely” vote patterns
The plaintiffs point to statistical irregularities: a statistician told plaintiffs that presidential results in four of five Rockland towns are “statistically highly unlikely” compared with 2020 patterns, and the complaint emphasizes mismatches between votes for Senate and President — e.g., split‑ticket patterns where Democrats for Senate (Kirsten Gillibrand in reporting) received hundreds of votes while Harris received none in some districts [1] [2] [6].
3. Specific precinct examples driving scrutiny
Public posts and the complaint cite precinct‑level oddities — for example Ramapo District 35 where official returns showed Trump 552, Harris 0, and Gillibrand 331 — which plaintiffs and outside watchers flagged as anomalous and used to press for further review [1] [7]. News outlets and SMART Elections highlighted such precinct counts when publicizing the lawsuit [1] [2].
4. Targeting machines, processes and records — what plaintiffs seek
The suit requests broad discovery: hand recount of presidential and Senate ballots and production of documents tied to “actual or alleged irregularities, errors, problems, or misalignment of election results or voter rolls” in 2020 and 2024, and scrutiny of voting machines given their central role in alleged discrepancies [4] [3].
5. The court’s response: discovery allowed, major relief dismissed
A New York State Supreme Court judge, Rachel Tanguay, allowed discovery to move forward after finding the allegations serious enough to warrant evidentiary inquiry — but the court previously dismissed most requests to invalidate the election, order a special election, or appoint a monitor [6] [8]. Judges have signaled that discovery, not immediate decertification, is the remedy at this stage [8] [6].
6. Competing explanations and responses from officials and analysts
County attorneys and election officials dispute the claims and point to demographic voting patterns — for example, concentrated bloc voting in Hasidic communities can produce lopsided precinct numbers that look anomalous but reflect local turnout and preferences [7]. Newsweek and other outlets quoted experts saying unusual patterns might reflect idiosyncratic local behavior rather than fraud; at least one academic produced an analysis asserting results were “statistically highly unlikely,” which the plaintiffs use to justify a recount [2] [4] [7].
7. Political context and possible motives behind publicizing the suit
SMART Legislation and its parent, SMART Elections, frame the case as part of a broader push for election transparency and audits; their messaging argues for hand recounts where discrepancies are alleged [5]. Critics and some reporters warn that litigation spotlighting statistical anomalies can fuel voter mistrust even if local explanations exist — VoteBeat notes the case is amplifying mistrust on the left as well as the right [9].
8. What the suit does and does not claim (per available reporting)
Available sources show the complaint seeks a hand recount and alleges miscounting, missing votes, mismatch between Senate and presidential tallies, and possible machine/process issues — but the reporting notes the suit does not, at this stage, provide judicially established proof of deliberate fraud, and does not change the certified national outcome [1] [10]. Sources do not mention conclusions from a completed hand recount or any final judicial finding of intentional wrongdoing — discovery is ongoing [6] [4].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the provided coverage. Court proceedings and discovery responses may produce new facts; available sources do not mention any final adjudication finding intentional interference by election officials [6] [4].