Fact check: Which states conducted manual recounts of voting machine results in the 2024 election?

1. Who reportedly ordered manual recounts — a quick inventory that catches attention

Verified Voting’s contemporaneous summary published shortly after Election Day lists Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin as states where manual recounts of machine-counted results took place in 2024, with states varying in method and deadlines for requesting reviews. This inventory frames the factual baseline for the question by naming specific states and emphasizing that recount practices and triggers differ by state law and local procedures, which matters for how and why manual checks were applied in each jurisdiction ^[1].

2. Why recounts happen — the practical mechanics and legal triggers

Reporting from BBC and other contemporaneous observers explains that recounts are triggered either by automatic margin thresholds, candidate requests, court orders, or local challenges, and can involve hand counts of paper ballots or audits of scanner totals. The emphasis is that the United States’ decentralized system permits a patchwork of procedures: some states allow processing of mail ballots only on Election Day, which slows initial tallies and can increase the incidence of post-certification recount activity when margins narrow or disputes emerge ^[2].

3. How the 2024 recounts fit into broader recount norms

Verified Voting’s list sits within long-standing patterns where close or legally contested contests lead to manual verification of paper records. The 2024 examples align with past practice: jurisdictions often manually recount paper ballots that were scanned by machines to confirm machine tallies or resolve contested batches. This contextualizes the named states not as exceptional but as operating within recognized legal remedies for close or contested results; the variation in which counties within a state conducted counts is part of normal procedural diversity ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Political context and post-election pressure — who wanted machine access and why it matters

Subsequent reporting from 2025 highlights political pressure over access to voting machines and records, such as requests in Missouri by federal actors that counties refused; these disputes underscore that recounts and machine access became flashpoints for political actors seeking verification or evidence. That reporting emphasizes concerns from local election officials about preserving chain-of-custody and resisting intrusive access demands, which frames recounts as technical safeguards entangled with political conflict ^[3].

5. Claims, conspiracies, and contesting recount legitimacy — competing narratives emerged

Throughout 2025 coverage, both right- and left-leaning conspiracy claims surfaced, with groups pushing alternative tallies or statistical models that conflicted with certified results. Independent experts in those pieces found no evidence to overturn official counts, and reporting warns that recounts and audits can be co-opted into broader disinformation campaigns. This shows two dynamics: recounts serve legitimate verification functions, while the same processes can be amplified by actors with political motives seeking to delegitimize outcomes ^[4].

6. Records, transparency, and legal friction — Maricopa and document fights illuminate limits

A 2025 piece detailing a public records fight in Maricopa County reveals friction over transparency: delayed or incomplete releases of communications between officials and pressure campaigns demonstrated how record-keeping and openness affect trust in recounts and post-election reviews. That case exemplifies how procedural disputes—about texts, orders, or access—can shape public perception of whether manual recounts were thorough or politically influenced, even where the recount mechanics were standard ^[5].

7. Synthesizing claims and open questions — what remains unsettled for readers

The contemporaneous list of states that conducted manual recounts is credible and consistent with broader descriptions of U.S. recount practice: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are identified by Verified Voting as having manual recount activity in 2024. Remaining open questions include the scope within each state (which counties, what proportion of ballots), the legal grounds used for each recount, and how subsequent political pressure or document fights shaped local procedures—details present in later 2025 reporting about machine access disputes and transparency struggles ^{[1] [3] [5]}.

8. Bottom line for fact-seeking readers — what to accept and what to probe next

Accept the Verified Voting inventory as a factual starting point naming states with manual recounts in 2024, while probing further for county-level specifics, the statutory triggers used, and any post-recount legal challenges. Be mindful that later coverage documents political attempts to access machines or reinterpret recount outcomes—these do not negate the existence of manual recounts but show how procedural verification can become politically contested, making granular public records and independent audits essential for confidence in results ^{[1] [3] [4]}.