What are the key claims in the New York 2024 presidential election lawsuit?

1. The core allegation: missing and miscounted votes

The complaint, filed by SMART Legislation (the action arm of SMART Elections) and individual plaintiffs, asserts that Rockland County’s vote totals contain substantive irregularities — most prominently “drop-off” anomalies where hundreds of voters reportedly selected Democratic Senate candidate Kirsten Gillibrand but allegedly recorded zero votes for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in multiple precincts ^{[1] [2]}. The petition seeks a full hand recount of the presidential and Senate ballots and argues that if machine tallies are wrong, voters’ constitutional rights were violated ^{[1] [4]}.

2. The statistical angle the plaintiffs emphasize

Plaintiffs point to statistical analyses claiming results in four of Rockland’s five towns were “statistically highly unlikely” when compared with 2020 patterns, and they cite a named statistician and academic commentary suggesting notable drop‑off inconsistencies between presidential and down‑ballot votes ^{[2] [5]}. SMART’s public statements and press materials lean heavily on these quantitative claims to justify discovery and a hand recount ^{[1] [5]}.

3. What the court has done so far

In May 2025, Justice Rachel Tanguay declined to summarily dismiss the entire case and ordered discovery to proceed, a move that advances document production and fact‑finding though leaves many claims unresolved; the county has moved to dismiss and asked for a stay of discovery ^{[1] [3]}. Reporters note the judge’s ruling permits evidence‑gathering but does not equate to a finding of fraud or that certified results should be overturned ^{[3] [6]}.

4. What plaintiffs want and what they cannot achieve through this suit

SMART Legislation is explicitly seeking a full, transparent, public hand recount in Rockland County and, at points in the complaint, asked courts to invalidate county-level Senate and presidential results and appoint a monitor — though courts have already dismissed requests to invalidate statewide outcomes and call a new special election ^{[4] [6]}. Multiple outlets caution that even a successful local recount would not reverse certified national results and that Congress has already certified the presidential outcome ^{[6] [2]}.

5. Responses and skepticism from local officials and analysts

Rockland County officials and the county attorney have called portions of the claim without merit and argued plaintiffs may not qualify for the statutory standard required for a recount; the county filed a motion to dismiss and to stay discovery ^[3]. Election experts quoted by reporting urge caution: statistical comparisons alone “cannot provide definitive proof of wrongdoing” and demographic or ballot‑style explanations can account for some drop‑off patterns ^{[2] [7]}.

6. Broader implications: trust, media attention and political framing

Coverage shows the case has been amplified beyond local courts, fueling skepticism among some voters and inspiring social posts claiming a “vanishing” of Harris votes; reporters warn the suit can intensify voter mistrust even if it uncovers explainable causes, and analysts contrast this litigation with 2020‑style fraud claims while noting the legal standards and remedies differ ^{[8] [7]}. Some local analyses describe media hype and emphasize the limited practical reach of a county‑level recount ^[6].

7. Limitations of current reporting and outstanding questions

Available sources document the suit’s allegations, discovery order, and public claims of statistical anomalies, but do not yet report completed hand recount results, court findings of fraud, or definitive explanations that reconcile the contested precinct totals ^{[1] [3]}. Discovery is ongoing; whether forensic review or a court‑ordered recount will validate or refute the petition’s statistical claims remains to be seen in subsequent filings and hearings ^[9].

8. How to read competing claims

Plaintiffs frame their case around measurable anomalies and demand transparency; county officials call the allegations legally insufficient and emphasize normal electoral processes. Independent journalists and election analysts repeatedly advise that statistical oddities require context — demographics, ballot design, or legitimate vote‑drop behavior can produce surprising splits — and that statistical improbability is not, by itself, proof of machine failure or fraud ^{[2] [7]}. Monitor coverage of discovery and any recount for definitive factual resolution ^[1].