Fact check: How did the 2024 election voting machine verification process differ from previous elections?

1. Pulling the Thread: What reporters said the key claims were

Reporting summarized three central claims about the 2024 verification process: that over 98% of Americans cast ballots with a paper record, that ballot-marking devices plus optical scanners were the dominant tabulation pathway, and that the period saw renewed focus on audits and access to machines (reporting dated mid-September 2025 emphasized these points). Those same reports flagged federal requests to inspect voting hardware and sharp state-level fights over procedural manuals and counting rules, indicating the verification conversation mixed technical choices with legal and political conflict ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The big shift: Why the paper-dominant narrative matters

Multiple mid-September 2025 accounts highlighted that paper ballots or voter-verifiable paper records were effectively universal in 2024, a practical change that boosts post-election audits and recount integrity because physical records enable risk-limiting audits and manual comparisons. This shift reduces sole reliance on black-box electronic tallies and makes verification processes more forensic and transparent, according to the reporting. The prevalence of paper records therefore alters how officials and auditors validate outcomes, prioritizing observable paper trails over purely digital logs ^[1].

3. Ballot-marking devices and scanners: New tools, old questions

Coverage noted that many jurisdictions used ballot-marking devices that produce paper ballots and optical scanners to tabulate them, which officials present as a compromise between accessibility and verifiability. These devices create a paper artifact while still leveraging automated tabulation, but they raise distinct verification steps—how scanners are sealed, how printer outputs are audited, and how ballot images are retained. The reporting stressed that the verification process therefore combined machine counts with manual audit samples, changing procedures rather than wholesale replacing them ^[1].

4. Federal access requests: Where verification met politics

Several reports from September 2025 described the federal executive branch seeking access to voting machines or machine data, prompting concern from state election officials about chain-of-custody and federal overreach. Those accounts framed the requests as politically charged and legally contentious, elevating verification from a technical exercise to a national debate about who inspects equipment and under what authority. The tension introduced new procedural questions about how independent audits and state-led verifications are protected from partisan interference ^[1].

5. State fights and the Arizona flashpoint: Manuals, hand counts and lawsuits

State-level disputes reshaped verification practices in contested places like Arizona, where Republican lawmakers contested rules on citizenship checks, early voting and hand counts and threatened litigation against the Secretary of State over a draft Elections Procedures Manual. These fights show that verification is inseparable from procedural rulemaking: what machines are checked, when hand counts are triggered and who oversees audits are determined by state manuals and court fights, not just technical standards ^[2].

6. Controversies, claims and misinformation: Dominion and 'deep state' narratives

Beyond procedural changes, reporting captured a parallel strand of claims alleging machine-specific fraud—targeting vendors such as Dominion—and conspiratorial language framing machines as instruments of foreign or covert influence. Those allegations were prominent in opinionated and highly partisan outlets in September 2025 and complicate public trust in verification even when paper trails and audits exist. The presence of these narratives shifted verification debates from mere technicalities to battles over public confidence and misinformation ^[3].

7. What truly changed versus what remained the same—and what to watch next

The factual pattern through September 2025 indicates the substance of verification changed incrementally rather than radically: jurisdictions increasingly relied on paper records and auditing protocols, but the core technologies—ballot marking devices and optical tabulators—remained common. Political and legal friction, including federal requests and state manual fights, emerged as the principal new variable shaping how verification is implemented and perceived. Going forward, observers should watch whether new statutory rules or court decisions standardize audit practices and whether federal-state tensions result in clarified authorities for machine inspections ^{[1] [2] [4]}.