Fact check: Were voting machines adjusted prior to 2024 election

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is confirmed evidence that voting machines were adjusted prior to the 2024 election, though the nature and significance of these changes are disputed. Pro V&V, a federally accredited testing lab, approved changes to voting systems ahead of the 2024 election ^[1]. The lab's director, Jack Cobb, claims these changes were minor, involving updates such as changing printers and adding mounting brackets ^[1].

However, multiple sources allege these changes were far more extensive. One analysis claims that Pro V&V "quietly performed sweeping changes to voting machines used in over 40% of U.S. counties without public review or verification" ^[2]. Another source confirms that "software and firmware updates were made to voting machines" ^[3].

The most complex narrative involves allegations that Eaton (which acquired Tripp Lite, a manufacturer of smart UPS units used in voting systems) partnered with Palantir Technologies and Elon Musk's Starlink to potentially manipulate voting data ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the routine nature of voting system updates. Election security measures typically include regular software and firmware updates as part of standard maintenance and security protocols ^[5]. The SECURE IT Act was introduced to improve voting machine security through penetration testing and vulnerability disclosure programs ^[6].

Two competing narratives emerge:

• Official/Industry perspective: Changes were minor, routine maintenance updates approved through proper channels by accredited testing labs ^[1]
• Alternative perspective: Changes were extensive, secretive modifications that potentially altered election outcomes ^{[2] [4]}

Key beneficiaries of each narrative:

• Election officials and voting machine companies benefit from the "routine maintenance" narrative as it maintains public confidence in election integrity
• Political figures questioning the 2024 results (including those suggesting Kamala Harris actually won) benefit from the "extensive manipulation" narrative ^[2]
• Tech industry figures like Elon Musk are positioned as potential beneficiaries of alleged manipulation schemes ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question is neutrally phrased and doesn't contain obvious misinformation. However, it lacks important context about:

• The routine nature of voting system updates and maintenance
• The regulatory framework governing such changes through accredited testing labs
• The distinction between minor technical updates and significant system modifications

The analyses reveal significant bias in some sources, particularly those making unsubstantiated claims about complex conspiracy involving multiple tech companies without concrete evidence ^[4]. One source acknowledges that "claims are not supported by concrete evidence and appear speculative" ^[4].

The timing of publications is also significant - most sources making dramatic claims were published in June 2025, well after the election, suggesting these may be post-hoc narratives rather than contemporaneous reporting of actual events.