Fact check: What were the findings of the 2024 election voting machine audits in swing states?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the available analyses, the findings of 2024 election voting machine audits in swing states are limited but significant. Wisconsin conducted the most comprehensive audit documented in these sources, which found zero voting machine errors or tampering ^{[1] [2]}. The Wisconsin audit examined nearly 10% of all ballots cast in the state, hand-counting 327,230 ballots, and detected only five human errors, resulting in an extraordinarily low error rate of 0.0000009% ^[1]. The audit confirmed that no ballots were counted incorrectly, altered, or missed by tabulating machines, and found no evidence of hacking or tampering with voting machines or software ^[2].

However, the analyses reveal that comprehensive audit findings from other swing states are not readily available or documented in the provided sources ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about ongoing controversies surrounding voting machine modifications. Critics have raised concerns about changes made to voting machines by Pro V&V, a federally accredited testing lab, ahead of the 2024 election ^{[5] [6]}. These changes were allegedly not properly tested or announced, leading to questions about their potential impact on election outcomes ^{[5] [6]}.

Security experts and election integrity advocates continue to emphasize vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems, particularly Dominion and ES&S software, and argue for comprehensive post-election audits of physical ballots in all swing states ^[7]. These advocates would benefit from increased scrutiny and audit requirements, as it supports their calls for enhanced election security measures.

A lawsuit has been filed demanding a full hand recount of presidential and Senate races in Rockland County, New York, highlighting ongoing disputes about election integrity ^[6]. The absence of comprehensive audit data from other swing states creates an information gap that various political actors can exploit to either support or challenge election legitimacy claims.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation but may inadvertently assume that comprehensive audits were conducted across all swing states, when the evidence shows that detailed audit findings are primarily available from Wisconsin. This assumption could lead to incomplete or misleading conclusions about the overall integrity of voting machines in the 2024 election.

The framing of the question as seeking "findings" implies that systematic audits occurred uniformly across swing states, but the analyses reveal that audit practices and transparency vary significantly by state ^[4]. This variation in audit implementation and reporting creates opportunities for selective interpretation of results by different political actors seeking to either validate or challenge election outcomes.

Election security advocates and political organizations on various sides would benefit from either comprehensive audit results that support their narratives or the absence of such results that allows continued speculation about election integrity.