Fact check: Were changes made to voting machines before the 2024 elections?

1. Summary of the results

Yes, changes were made to voting machines before the 2024 elections. Multiple sources confirm that updates were implemented to voting systems ahead of the election ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The testing laboratory Pro V&V approved these changes, which included:

• Updates to software and firmware ^{[2] [4]}
• Modifications to ballot boxes and printers ^{[1] [2] [3]}
• Changes to file storage locations ^{[1] [2]}
• Printer replacements and mounting bracket additions ^[1]

The Election Assistance Commission categorized these changes as "de minimis," meaning they were considered minor modifications ^{[4] [3]}. However, the director of Pro V&V consistently downplayed the significance of these changes across multiple sources ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the legal challenges surrounding these changes. A lawsuit has been filed alleging voting machine issues in the 2024 presidential election, with specific claims that some machines recorded zero votes for Kamala Harris despite complete ballots being cast ^{[4] [3]}. This lawsuit brings the 2024 election results under scrutiny ^[2].

Alternative perspectives emerge regarding the significance of these changes:

• Pro V&V's position: The testing lab's director maintains these were routine, insignificant updates that didn't require full testing protocols ^[4]
• Critics' concerns: Some question whether "de minimis" changes should have undergone more rigorous testing, especially given allegations of voting irregularities
• Election security experts: While acknowledging voting machine vulnerabilities to insider access or corrupted programming, experts currently find no credible evidence to support claims of widespread vote manipulation ^[5]

The context also reveals ongoing work by researchers like J. Alex Halderman at the University of Michigan, who has been working on strengthening election integrity through various security measures ^[6], and organizations like Verified Voting that focus on election security ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual, simply asking whether changes occurred. However, the framing could be problematic depending on the intent behind asking it.

Potential concerns include:

• The question might be designed to seed doubt about election integrity without providing the crucial context that such changes are routine maintenance
• It omits the fact that these changes were officially categorized as minor by the Election Assistance Commission ^[3]
• The question doesn't acknowledge that post-election audits and security measures exist to verify election integrity ^[5]

Who benefits from different narratives:

• Election officials and voting machine companies like Pro V&V benefit from emphasizing these were routine, insignificant changes
• Political actors questioning election results benefit from highlighting any changes as potentially suspicious
• Election security advocates benefit from promoting transparency and rigorous testing protocols regardless of change magnitude

The most significant bias risk lies not in the question itself, but in how the answer might be used to either legitimately inform about election processes or inappropriately cast doubt on election integrity without supporting evidence.