Fact check: Which states conducted official election audits after the 2024 presidential election?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, at least three states conducted official election audits after the 2024 presidential election:

• Pennsylvania conducted comprehensive audits, with each county performing a statutorily required 2% statistical audit and a statewide risk-limiting audit ^[1]
• Wisconsin conducted an official election audit where local elections officials in 336 randomly selected municipalities hand-counted 327,230 ballots ^[2]
• Georgia performed a risk-limiting audit with a 5% risk limit ^[3]

The analyses also indicate that several other swing states have audit and recount laws in place, including Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and others, though specific confirmation of their 2024 audit activities was not provided in these sources ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The question appears straightforward, but several important pieces of context are missing from the available analyses:

• Comprehensive state-by-state breakdown: While the sources confirm audits in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, they don't provide a complete list of all 50 states and their audit activities ^{[5] [6]}
• Distinction between mandatory and voluntary audits: The analyses don't clearly differentiate which states conducted audits because they were legally required versus those that chose to do so voluntarily
• Timing and scope variations: Different states may have conducted different types of audits (statistical, risk-limiting, hand recounts) at different times, but this variation isn't fully captured
• Political motivations: The analyses don't address whether audit decisions were influenced by political pressure, legal challenges, or routine compliance with existing laws

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual - it simply asks which states conducted official audits without making claims about election integrity or suggesting any particular outcome. However, there are potential areas where bias could emerge:

• The question doesn't specify what constitutes an "official" audit, which could lead to selective reporting depending on one's definition
• In the broader context of election discussions, questions about audits are sometimes used to imply problems with election integrity, though this particular question doesn't make such implications
• The focus on "official" audits might exclude other forms of election verification or oversight that some stakeholders consider equally important

The analyses themselves appear to present factual information about audit procedures and results without apparent bias, focusing on documented processes and outcomes rather than political interpretations.