Fact check: What legal challenges were filed regarding voting machine integrity in 2024?

1. Lawsuits Naming Counties and Questioning Results — What the filings actually assert and where they were filed

Several filings in the dataset make direct challenges to reported election outcomes or to the security architecture of specific jurisdictions. SMART Legislation’s action in New York advances a claim that statistical irregularities in Rockland County warrant legal review and potentially call results into question ^[1]. Separately, a DeKalb County Republican Party complaint in Georgia directly attacks the state’s deployment of Dominion Voting Systems, alleging problems tied to unsecured encryption keys and asserting violations of federal certification standards and Georgia statutes ^[2]. These complaints are framed as discrete, jurisdiction-specific challenges rather than broad nationwide suits, and their legal theories vary from statistical anomaly assertions to statutory certification and configuration issues. The filings therefore represent a mix of statistical, procedural, and technical legal arguments that pursue remedies in state court or through administrative certification processes ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Technical reporting and vulnerabilities — What independent researchers and threat reports found before and during the election

Independent technical work cited in the materials documented persistent and long-known vulnerabilities in election equipment and emphasized efforts to catalog flaws ahead of elections. Researchers presenting at DEF CON documented device vulnerabilities, some tracing back to 2007, and focused on logging and reporting flaws to officials prior to Election Day ^[3]. Industry analysis highlights that many machines now include paper trails and redundancy intended to mitigate tampering, yet the sector faces both real technical challenges and sustained conspiracy-driven scrutiny ^[6]. A separate threat intelligence report cataloged a range of cyber threats to election infrastructure—from ransomware to state-sponsored espionage—underscoring that documented vulnerabilities exist within a broader threat landscape, though the translation from vulnerability find to demonstrated election interference is not automatic ^[4].

3. Conflicting expert interpretations — Statistical anomalies versus unfounded inferences

The dataset shows a sharp discrepancy between plaintiffs’ claims of anomalies and expert skepticism about those same patterns. Coverage of the Rockland County case notes that the complaint relies on statistical anomalies that some experts deem unfounded, warning that litigation can amplify public distrust even when technical or statistical bases are weak ^[5]. Other reporting frames many 2024 election lawsuits as echoing 2020-era strategies that raise fears of voter fraud without corroborating evidence ^[7]. This divergence reveals a legal battleground where statistical analyses become contested evidence: plaintiffs present patterns they interpret as irregular, while independent analysts and some cybersecurity reporting advise caution, emphasizing that observed patterns often have benign explanations or require deeper forensic validation ^{[5] [7]}.

4. Legal outcomes, procedural posture, and real-world stakes in 2024 litigation

The actions in the sample vary in procedural posture—some advancing in state courts, others dismissed or still pending—and they carry implications beyond immediate relief requests because they influence public confidence and future election administration. The New York lawsuit is moving forward in state supreme court, drawing attention to potential post-election review mechanisms ^[1]. In Georgia, the DeKalb suit raises statutory certification issues tied to vendor operations such as encryption key management, which could create pressure for administrative audits or procedural changes even absent findings of malfeasance ^[2]. Meanwhile, dismissals and critical coverage of weak claims are reported alongside these filings, indicating a mixed pattern of legal traction where procedural rulings and public reaction both shape the broader integrity conversation ^{[7] [2]}.

5. Big-picture takeaways — What these cases mean for election security policy and public trust

Taken together, the documented lawsuits and technical reports illustrate two parallel dynamics: legal strategies that challenge results and vendor practices, and technical efforts to catalogue vulnerabilities and bolster protections. Plaintiffs frequently invoke statistical or procedural theories that attract media attention and can erode confidence even when experts dispute their validity ^{[5] [7]}. Cybersecurity reporting underscores persistent technical risks and the need for paper trails, audits, and certification rigor, suggesting policy responses that focus on transparency and hardened procedures rather than litigation alone ^{[3] [6] [4]}. These combined threads imply that durable improvements will depend on updated technical safeguards, clearer certification enforcement, and forensic transparency to resolve disputes without exacerbating public skepticism ^{[2] [6]}.