Rockland County NY lawsuit update as of October 1, 2025
Executive summary
A New York Supreme Court judge allowed a lawsuit filed by SMART Legislation challenging Rockland County’s 2024 presidential and U.S. Senate results to proceed into discovery, with the judge finding the allegations serious enough to warrant examination of ballots and election records [1] [2]. Plaintiffs allege statistical anomalies — including unusual “drop‑off” rates between top‑of‑ticket and down‑ballot races and affidavits from voters claiming missing ballots — while election experts and local reporting argue the case is unlikely to change statewide outcomes [2] [3] [4].
1. What the lawsuit says and what the court authorized
SMART Legislation’s complaint contends that Rockland County’s 2024 vote totals show anomalies: an unusually large drop‑off between presidential and Senate tallies, sworn voter affidavits alleging missing or miscounted ballots, and statistical patterns the plaintiffs call improbable — for example, instances where more voters claim to have voted for an independent Senate candidate than the board certified [5] [2]. Judge Rachel Tanguay refused to dismiss the suit at an early stage and ordered discovery to proceed, meaning the court will review ballots and records rather than immediately resolving the dispute on the papers [1] [2].
2. The core statistical claims and outside expert commentary
Plaintiffs highlight a roughly 30% difference in drop‑off rates emphasized in the complaint and say some towns show “statistically highly unlikely” departures compared with 2020 patterns; they cite academic analysis and expert declarations to support that view [6] [5]. But other election experts quoted in coverage — and outlets such as Votebeat and the Rockland County Business Journal — warn that statistical irregularities alone do not prove fraud and that litigation in Rockland is unlikely to overturn statewide or national results; at most, court‑ordered recounts or localized remedies could follow [7] [4] [3].
3. What discovery could seek and why plaintiffs want a hand recount
SMART’s public materials and reporting say discovery has already raised questions about documentation and election procedures — for example, chain‑of‑custody and password handling for voting machines — and the group seeks a full, transparent hand recount of presidential and Senate ballots to resolve disputes [5] [1]. Plaintiffs argue that affidavits and discrepancies between county and state tallies justify examining paper ballots and machine logs [5] [2]. Available sources do not mention a completed countywide hand recount as of Oct. 1, 2025.
4. Counterarguments, mainstream reporting and fact‑checking
Local and national coverage stresses caution: Snopes and Votebeat described the complaint and its statistical claims, noting plausible demographic or voting‑pattern explanations and that experts do not see cause to invalidate election outcomes broadly [8] [3]. Analysis in the Rockland County Business Journal and Election Law Blog emphasizes that even if discovery uncovers procedural errors, the most likely remedies are narrow — such as recounts or remediation at the county level — not overturning the 2024 presidential or Senate results [4] [7].
5. Stakeholders, motives and political context to watch
SMART Elections frames the suit as nonpartisan election‑integrity work and pushes transparency and security reforms [9] [5]. Local government officials and some reporters characterize the litigation as fueling public skepticism, whether intentionally or inadvertently, by spotlighting anomalies without definitive proof of systemic fraud [3] [2]. Observers should note that litigants, advocacy groups and some local outlets each have incentives — from policy advocacy to audience engagement — that shape how findings are presented [9] [3].
6. What to expect next and how to evaluate developments
The case’s immediate phase is discovery: document exchanges, depositions and potential expert analyses that could lead to targeted recounts or motions for summary judgment [1]. Independent verification will hinge on whether a public hand recount is ordered and on the content of disclosed audits and machine logs [5] [1]. Readers should demand evidence produced in court — not just headline statistical claims — and weigh competing expert analyses reported in outlets such as Votebeat, Snopes and local press [3] [8] [2].
Limitations: reporting to Oct. 1, 2025, shows the suit advanced to discovery and generated expert debate; available sources do not report a final judicial ruling invalidating results or a completed countywide hand recount as of that date [1] [2].