Fact check: What legal challenges were filed regarding the 2024 election vote counts?

1. A lawsuit that forces discovery and asks for a hand recount — what SMART Legislation is alleging and seeking

SMART Legislation, the litigation arm of SMART Elections, sued over the 2024 results in Rockland County, New York, alleging statistical anomalies and possible pre‑ballot alterations to voting machines and requesting a full hand recount of ballots in the presidential and U.S. Senate races. The complaint highlights instances where vote patterns deviate sharply from 2020 baselines and points to precincts with unusual cross‑race vote divergences, asserting that the discrepancies are “serious enough” to warrant discovery and a manual count to verify fidelity ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court ruled that the allegations meet a threshold to proceed to discovery despite the election’s certification, advancing the case into fact‑gathering rather than immediate dismissal ^[1]. The complaint names experts and cites statistical analysis claiming improbability in vote distributions, and it explicitly frames the relief sought as corrective and investigative—hand recounts and documentation to test whether tabulation processes functioned as advertised ^[3].

2. The national picture: dozens to hundreds of election suits tracked across states

National trackers and reporting show substantial post‑election litigation: one dataset lists more than 130 lawsuits filed in 33 states between August 1 and November 20, 2024, indicating a broad geographic footprint of challenges to procedures, ballots, and results ^[4]. Other reporting frames 2024 as a record in volume, citing 295 election‑related cases filed nationwide and noting that the number surpasses litigation levels from 2020 and 2022, with partisan and nonpartisan actors participating in these filings ^[5]. The discrepancy in case counts reflects differing inclusion criteria and timeframes—some tallies capture incidents through late November 2024, while other tallies count cases filed into 2025 and track follow‑on suits—so the exact scale varies by tracker, but the consensus is clear that litigation was extensive and widespread ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Courts’ initial responses and the realistic legal prospects of overturning outcomes

Courts have followed diverse paths: the Rockland action cleared a discovery hurdle, signaling judicial willingness to examine factual claims where pleadings allege specific irregularities ^[1]. At the same time, aggregated reporting indicates that courts have largely resolved many post‑election suits against plaintiffs or in favor of established procedures, and legal analysts argue that isolated suits are unlikely to overturn certified results absent incontrovertible chain‑of‑custody or tabulation proofs ^{[5] [6]}. The legal bar for invalidating certified results is high; courts demand specific, admissible evidence connecting alleged misconduct to a material change in the count, which many litigants have not met. In Rockland, discovery will test whether the plaintiffs can produce such evidence, while other suits continue to settle, be dismissed, or proceed without altering election certifications ^{[1] [5]}.

4. The statistical evidence claim and the counterargument about voting patterns

Plaintiffs in Rockland rely on statistical analyses by academics who say certain towns’ 2024 presidential results are statistically unlikely compared with 2020, framing those findings as evidence of anomalies that merit forensic investigation ^[3]. Max Bonamente and others characterize the patterns as highly improbable in several towns, prompting calls for verification of voting‑machine integrity and tabulation outputs ^[3]. Countering this, experts and some reporting note that unusual distributions can arise from legitimate phenomena like concentrated bloc voting, cross‑race ballot behavior, or demographic shifts, and that statistical outliers alone do not prove manipulation or machine tampering ^[6]. The courts will need to weigh probabilistic claims against explainable electoral dynamics and chain‑of‑custody documentation to determine if statistical anomalies rise to legal proof ^{[3] [6]}.

5. Who is bringing suits, who supports them, and what motives matter for interpreting filings

The litigation landscape includes nonpartisan watchdogs like SMART Elections as well as partisan actors; one dataset finds the GOP and affiliated groups involved in a substantial share of cases—123 out of 295 in one count—while other suits are brought by voters, civic groups, and state actors seeking procedural clarifications or ballot adjudications ^{[5] [4]}. SMART Legislation presents itself as nonpartisan, yet its high‑profile challenge intersects with broader political debates about confidence in election technology and tabulation, an area where policy reformers, litigants, and partisan stakeholders converge. Observers should treat filings both as legal claims requiring proof and as moves within a larger political context where litigation can serve both remedial and reputational aims; courts will ultimately evaluate evidentiary merit regardless of litigants’ stated motives ^{[1] [5]}.

6. What comes next — discovery, expert testimony, and the evidentiary gauntlet

The immediate next steps in the Rockland case and similar lawsuits involve discovery, forensic review requests, and expert depositions intended to establish whether anomalies reflect error, fraud, or lawful voter behavior; success requires demonstrating a causal link between alleged misconduct and altered vote totals.