Fact check: Which states reported the most 2024 election irregularities?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the available analyses, no comprehensive data exists to definitively identify which states reported the most 2024 election irregularities. The sources provide fragmented information about various states experiencing election-related issues, but lack systematic reporting on irregularity volumes by state.

The analyses reveal several key findings:

• Battleground states faced significant legal challenges: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were "flooded with voting lawsuits weeks out from Election Day" ^[1]
• Wisconsin and Georgia had documented fraud cases according to The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map, though this source "does not provide comprehensive information on the states with the most 2024 election irregularities" ^[2]
• New York experienced specific voting discrepancies in Rockland County, with a lawsuit advancing regarding these issues ^[3]
• Overall electoral integrity declined nationally, with the US 2024 presidential election showing "notable declines in electoral integrity, particularly in participation and deliberation, with concerns over gerrymandering and disinformation" ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes that comprehensive reporting and tracking of "election irregularities" exists across all states, but the analyses reveal significant gaps in this assumption:

• No centralized irregularity reporting system: The sources indicate that while individual cases and lawsuits are documented, there's no systematic state-by-state comparison of irregularity volumes
• Definition ambiguity: The analyses don't clarify what constitutes an "irregularity" versus fraud, administrative errors, or legal disputes
• Selective reporting bias: Organizations like The Heritage Foundation may focus on certain types of cases or states that align with their political perspectives ^[2]
• International context ignored: One source discusses election issues in British Columbia, Canada, highlighting that election integrity concerns exist globally, not just in the US ^[5]

Political actors and organizations benefit from different narratives:

• Election integrity organizations benefit from highlighting irregularities to justify their existence and funding
• Legal firms profit from the numerous voting lawsuits filed across battleground states
• Political parties can use irregularity claims to mobilize their base or challenge unfavorable results

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains several problematic assumptions:

• Implies systematic tracking exists: The question assumes states "reported" irregularities in a standardized way, but the analyses show this comprehensive reporting system doesn't exist
• Suggests quantifiable comparison: By asking "which states reported the most," it implies reliable numerical data exists for cross-state comparison, which the sources don't support
• May perpetuate unfounded claims: The question's framing could contribute to "false narratives" about election integrity, as mentioned in the British Columbia context ^[5]
• Lacks temporal specificity: The question doesn't distinguish between pre-election concerns, Election Day issues, or post-election disputes

The analyses suggest that while election-related legal challenges and concerns existed across multiple states, no authoritative source provides the comprehensive state-by-state irregularity data that would be necessary to answer the original question accurately.