Fact check: What were the findings of the post-2024 election audits on voting machine integrity?

1. Summary of the results

The post-2024 election audits consistently demonstrated high voting machine integrity across multiple states. Wisconsin's comprehensive audit found zero voting machine errors across 336 selected municipalities statewide, with only minimal human errors identified ^{[1] [2]}. Pennsylvania's post-election audits confirmed the accuracy of the 2024 general election results, identifying only six vote discrepancies during their risk-limiting audit - a remarkably low number that indicates exceptional machine accuracy ^[3].

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission's 2024 Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) report revealed that over 98% of election jurisdictions used voting equipment that either has voters mark paper ballots or produces auditable paper records, providing a robust foundation for verification ^[4]. This widespread use of paper-based systems facilitated comprehensive post-election audits that could verify machine accuracy ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual elements not addressed in the original question:

• The Trump administration implemented new requirements for election security grants, potentially affecting future audit funding and compliance, though this doesn't impact the 2024 audit findings themselves ^[7]. States that don't comply with these new federal requirements may lose access to election security funding, which could influence future audit capabilities.
• Election security experts noted that while the 2024 election was delivered smoothly, public trust issues persist despite the technical accuracy demonstrated by audits ^[8]. This suggests that voting machine integrity findings may not translate directly to public confidence in election systems.
• The audits focused primarily on technical machine accuracy rather than broader election administration concerns or public perception issues that continue to influence political discourse ^[8].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual - it simply asks for information about audit findings without making claims. However, the framing could potentially be used to support different narratives:

• Election integrity advocates would benefit from highlighting these positive audit results to demonstrate the reliability of voting systems and counter unfounded claims about machine manipulation.
• Those questioning election systems might focus on the limited scope of audits or argue that the audits themselves are insufficient, despite the comprehensive nature of the Wisconsin audit covering 336 municipalities ^[1].
• The question doesn't acknowledge that nearly all votes in 2024 were cast on paper ballots ^[5], which is a crucial context that makes machine manipulation significantly more difficult and audits more reliable. This paper trail system represents a fundamental safeguard that wasn't universally available in previous election cycles.