What official audits or legal challenges followed the 2024 election results, and what were their findings?
Executive summary
After the 2024 federal election, states deployed routine post‑election processes — risk‑limiting audits (RLAs), statutory recounts and numerous lawsuits — that in many swing states affirmed certified results, while critics and some watchdog reports argued those same audits were often insufficiently rigorous or timely to provide “strong evidence” for the outcomes [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Official audits carried out and how they work
States used established post‑election tools: RLAs that hand‑count randomly selected paper ballots to test reported outcomes, statutory recounts for close contests, and official post‑election canvasses that allow verification and curing of ballots — processes summarized and contrasted by election experts and legal guides such as Verified Voting and the Brennan Center [1] [5] [6].
2. Notable state results that confirmed outcomes
Several high‑profile state audits publicly affirmed the reported winners: Georgia announced a statewide RLA with a 5% risk limit that “confirmed the outcome” of the presidential contest and published detailed rollup files and manifests (Georgia Secretary of State) [2], while Wisconsin’s statutorily required post‑election hand counts in a random sample of municipalities found no tabulation errors and no evidence of machine tampering in the November vote Trump won there [3].
3. Legal challenges and litigation trends after the vote
Post‑election litigation in 2024 tracked both traditional contesting of narrow races and a surge in pre‑ and post‑election suits aimed at voter rolls and ballot processes; watchdog groups documented an uptick in “anti‑voter” litigation, including many cases targeting purges and administration of mail voting in swing states, and legal avenues remain the accepted route to dispute certified results under state law [7] [8].
4. System‑level data and federal perspective
Federal and federal‑adjacent reporting frames the broader technical picture: the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s 2024 EAVS found that over 98% of jurisdictions used equipment that produced an auditable paper record, underscoring that post‑election audits were feasible in virtually all jurisdictions [9]; the Justice Department has also issued guidance warning that certain aggressive post‑election activities could cross into unlawful voter intimidation, placing legal limits on how audits and challenges are conducted [10].
5. Independent critiques: insufficient, untimely, or incomplete
At the same time, outside analysts criticized how audits were executed: a detailed assessment circulated by Free Speech For People concluded that audits in several swing states were “inadequate to provide strong evidence” affirming computer‑generated results, citing problems such as delayed publication, incomplete documentation and audit designs that could not escalate to full hand counts when warranted [4]. State‑level audits also varied; a Utah legislative auditor report pointed to significant procedural changes after software problems in a June primary, highlighting that audit design and implementation were not uniform nationwide [11].
6. Reconciling confirmation and critique — what the findings mean
Taken together, official RLAs and recounts in 2024 produced multiple public confirmations of outcomes in key states and found no systemic tabulation errors where results were audited [2] [3], but independent examinations and advocates argue that the evidence produced by many audits fell short of the “gold standard” risk‑limiting audit in timing, transparency or scope, meaning that while outcomes were certified and often corroborated, legitimate questions remain about whether audit practices nationwide are consistently sufficient to provide the strongest possible public assurance [4] [6] [1].