Fact check: How were voting machine results audited and verified in the 2024 election?

1. Summary of the results

The auditing and verification of voting machine results in the 2024 election involved multiple layers of oversight, though recent revelations have raised significant concerns about the integrity of these processes.

Standard Auditing Procedures:

• Election officials conducted logic and accuracy testing before the election, which involves testing voting equipment to ensure it works properly and counts ballots correctly ^[1]
• Post-election audits were implemented in key swing states including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, with each state having specific laws and procedures for audits and recounts ^[2]
• Risk-limiting audits were used in some jurisdictions, involving hand-counting samples of paper ballots to verify election-night results ^[3]

Controversial Developments:

However, significant concerns emerged about the verification process. Pro V&V, a federally accredited testing laboratory, approved sweeping last-minute updates to ES&S voting machines without independent testing, public disclosure, or full certification review ^[4]. These changes were made to voting systems ahead of the 2024 election without proper oversight or transparency ^[5].

A nonpartisan watchdog group filed a lawsuit citing voting discrepancies in Rockland County, New York, claiming these may have affected the election outcome ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question doesn't address the controversy surrounding last-minute voting machine modifications that occurred before the 2024 election. This represents a critical gap in understanding the full scope of auditing challenges.

Conflicting Perspectives:

• Jack Cobb, director of Pro V&V, downplayed the significance of the approved changes, stating they were minor and did not affect the election outcome ^[6]
• SMART Elections and other watchdog groups contradicted this assessment, suggesting the changes were significant and problematic ^[6]

Who Benefits from Different Narratives:

• Pro V&V and ES&S would benefit financially from minimizing concerns about their voting machine modifications, as they are commercial entities providing election services
• Election integrity advocates and watchdog organizations benefit from increased scrutiny and transparency requirements, which could lead to more funding and influence for their oversight activities
• Political parties and candidates may selectively emphasize audit results that support their preferred narratives about election legitimacy

The question also omits discussion of varying audit requirements across different states, with some having more robust verification processes than others ^{[2] [7]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, seeking information about established auditing procedures. However, it may inadvertently promote a false sense of comprehensive verification by implying that all voting machine results were uniformly audited and verified according to standard procedures.

The question fails to acknowledge the documented irregularities in the certification process that occurred before the 2024 election, where Pro V&V approved significant changes to voting systems without following proper protocols ^{[4] [5]}. This omission could mislead readers into believing that all standard auditing procedures were followed without exception.

Additionally, the framing suggests that auditing and verification processes were completed and conclusive, when in fact ongoing legal challenges and investigations continue to question the adequacy of these verification methods ^{[6] [5]}.