What evidence did courts and judges cite when rejecting Dominion Voting Systems fraud claims in 2020-2021?

1. Judges emphasized absence of credible evidence and audits

In written opinions and pretrial rulings judges repeatedly pointed to the absence of competent, admissible evidence showing Dominion machines flipped votes: court records cite hand‑count audits and official reports that found the machines produced accurate tallies, undermining the core factual premise of the fraud claims ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Courts relied on official agency findings, including CISA and local boards

Judges drew attention to public‑agency statements and reviews — for example the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s declaration that there was no evidence voting systems deleted, lost or changed votes — and to local election boards’ audits (such as the Maricopa hand count) that corroborated machine accuracy ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Internal communications and depositions undercut defendants’ assertions

Discovery produced text messages and deposition testimony showing prominent media figures and executives privately describing fraud claims as baseless or “crazy,” evidence courts cited to infer that some defendants either knew allegations were false or recklessly disregarded their veracity ^{[4] [3] [5]}.

4. Legal standards — “actual malice” and public‑figure doctrine — guided judges’ fact‑bound tests

Because Dominion and similar plaintiffs framed claims under defamation and related counts, judges applied the First Amendment‑rooted “actual malice” standard, looking for proof that defendants knew statements were false or acted with reckless disregard; courts found the complaint and discovery often supported the inference of such awareness in some defendants while dismissing bare or unverified assertions in others ^{[6] [1]}.

5. Courts treated certain high‑profile allegations as demonstrably false

In at least one Delaware pretrial ruling the judge concluded it was “crystal clear” that statements aired about Dominion’s role in rigging the election were false — language courts used to justify taking those assertions off the spectrum of reasonable dispute and allowing defamation claims to proceed or to rule against the fraud allegations ^{[3] [5] [1]}.

6. Inconsistent or unverified “evidence” — spreadsheets, partisan reports, and third‑party claims — failed to meet judicial scrutiny

Many of the submissions supporting fraud theories relied on self‑published spreadsheets, partisan analyses, or claims recycled by commentators rather than validated forensic audits; courts discounted those materials as unreliable or irrelevant to proving machine manipulation in any jurisdictional, admissible way ^{[1] [7]}.

7. How procedural outcomes reflected evidentiary findings — dismissals, denials, and settlements

Judges’ fact‑driven conclusions produced a patchwork of procedural results: some fraud lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing or proof, some defamation targets faced rulings allowing claims to proceed because discovery showed possible actual malice, and several major media defendants ultimately settled after courts signaled plaintiffs’ evidence had undermined defendants’ defenses ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

8. Limits of the public record and alternative claims acknowledged by courts

While judges relied on audits, agency statements, depositions and discovery, the publicly available rulings reflect only the record presented in court; alternative viewpoints — including litigants’ arguments that vigorous reporting or litigating on contentious topics merits constitutional protection — were raised by defendants and considered under First Amendment precedents even when courts found the factual claims unproven ^{[6] [3]}.