Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which states have conducted audits of the 2024 election results?
Executive Summary
Pennsylvania conducted documented post-election audits of the 2024 general and primary elections, including risk-limiting audits involving multiple counties that found only minor vote discrepancies, usually attributed to human error or unclear ballot marks [1] [2] [3]. Other entries reference audits or scrutiny in Georgia and Texas contexts from 2024 reporting, but those discuss past controversies, a contracted audit in Georgia’s parliamentary contest, and Texas monitoring of county elections rather than systematic statewide post-2024-election audits [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Pennsylvania’s audits: confirmation with tiny discrepancies and broad county participation
Pennsylvania carried out post-election auditing activity for the 2024 cycle that included a risk-limiting audit of the general election and a separate primary audit, with participation by dozens of counties. Reporting dated December 2, 2024 and May 5, 2025 documents that 32 counties took part in a general-election risk-limiting audit covering 55 batches, and the primary audit involved 27 counties and 60 batches. The audits confirmed the accuracy of reported results while noting a handful of discrepancies—six to seven votes in the general audit and two in the primary—typically explained as human marking or interpretation issues rather than systemic tabulation errors [1] [2] [3].
2. What the Pennsylvania findings mean: scale, error sources, and significance
The Pennsylvania reports emphasize that the discrepancies found were both numerically small and attributable to non-systemic causes, such as unclear ballot marks or human error, with the largest single change being two votes. Risk-limiting audits are designed to provide statistical confidence that reported outcomes are correct; the Pennsylvania audits’ small error counts and the audits’ multi-county scope support the conclusion that the statewide results were robust. The reporting frames these outcomes as evidence that the system produced accurate results across participating jurisdictions, while acknowledging that minor, routine errors can occur in any manual process [1] [2] [3].
3. Georgia’s audits and critiques: opacity and trust questions from 2024 reporting
Separate reporting in 2024 raised questions about audits’ transparency and independence in Georgia’s post-parliamentary-election review. A contractor, PRO V&V, performed a three-phase audit for Georgia’s Central Election Commission, but observers criticized the process for limited transparency and perceived conflicts, including involvement primarily by ruling-party representatives and past ties between the auditor and voting machine suppliers. This coverage frames the audit in Georgia as politically contested and suggests that audits can be undermined by process design and stakeholder control, a contrast to the Pennsylvania accounts emphasizing procedures and county participation [5] [4].
4. Texas scrutiny: state inspectors and monitoring rather than a statewide 2024 audit
Texas’ 2024 election oversight reporting focuses on state-level monitoring of county elections—specifically inspectors sent to Harris County following earlier audits that identified procedural problems in 2021–2022—rather than announcing a statewide post-2024 audit program. The Texas Secretary of State’s intervention reflects a regulatory response to prior local issues, emphasizing training and compliance, and illustrates how state officials may pursue oversight and corrective measures that differ from formal risk-limiting audits used elsewhere. This distinction matters when compiling a list of states that “conducted audits” of 2024 results [6].
5. Broad national context: elections, partisan control, and where audits fit
National reporting on 2024 state elections framed the cycle in terms of partisan control of legislatures and governorships, noting 38 states under single-party control and shifts in legislative chambers. That national-level analysis did not catalog state audit activities, highlighting a gap between electoral outcome reporting and post-election verification reporting. Where audits are reported, they vary in scope—from county-level risk-limiting audits to contracted third-party reviews or state oversight actions—making simple enumeration of "which states audited 2024 results" dependent on how an audit is defined and whether audits were statewide, county-by-county, or limited-scope [7].
6. Divergent agendas and what to watch when evaluating audit claims
The sources illustrate competing agendas: some reports present audits as confidence-building procedural checks, while others frame audits as potential tools of political influence or “security theater.” In Pennsylvania’s case, official audits produced results that validated outcomes with minimal discrepancies; in Georgia, critics questioned the audit’s independence and transparency. Readers should therefore weigh methodology, stakeholder involvement, and public reporting when assessing whether an audit meaningfully verified 2024 results or served other political purposes [1] [2] [3] [5] [4].
7. Bottom line and how to interpret the evidence across sources and dates
The verifiable conclusion across these reports is that Pennsylvania conducted documented risk-limiting audits of its 2024 primary and general elections with multi-county participation and minor discrepancies reported in December 2024 and May 2025, respectively; Georgia and Texas featured audit-related stories in 2024 that highlight concerns about transparency or state oversight rather than clear evidence of statewide post-2024 election audits. Determining a comprehensive list of states that ran post-2024 audits would require consistent definitions and systematic reporting beyond the sources provided here, as national summaries did not catalogue audit activity [1] [2] [3] [5] [6] [7].