Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How do 2024 election recount procedures compare to those used in 2020?
Executive Summary
Recount procedures in 2024 differ from 2020 in measurable ways: several states changed statutes or administrative rules that alter thresholds, timing, and who may trigger recounts, while other states left earlier practices intact or created new hurdles that could slow recounts. The net effect is a patchwork where some states made recounts easier or faster and others tightened access or raised costs, creating different risks and bottlenecks compared with 2020 [1] [2] [3].
1. What advocates and analysts said would change — and what actually did change
Analysts identified multiple claims that states revised recount rules after 2020; reporting and legislative records show those claims are grounded in lawmaking and rule changes in several battleground states. Michigan passed legislation in 2024 altering recount mechanics and fee structures, expanding the pool of ballots that can be recounted while imposing new filing standards and higher fees for petitioners, and added a “good faith” requirement for recount petitions [3] [4]. Verified Voting and other trackers documented changes such as Arizona raising the automatic recount threshold from 0.1% to 0.5% and other states revising thresholds and timelines; these changes mean that a narrower set of results would trigger automatic recounts in some places, while candidate-requested recounts face different cost and evidentiary barriers than in 2020 [2] [5].
2. How timing, deadlines, and certification pressure shifted since 2020
Federal and state certification timelines and new statutory deadlines influenced how recounts could play out in 2024, creating tighter windows in some states for completing recounts and for courts to resolve disputes. Pennsylvania’s 2024 statutory and logistical calendar raised concerns about meeting a December certification deadline if many recount petitions or court challenges emerged, reflecting a real difference from 2020 when timelines and litigation trajectories unfolded differently [6]. State-level changes such as Arizona’s expanded counting window for counties and Michigan’s retooled procedures also altered how quickly ballots could be re-examined and how long certification might be delayed, meaning recounts that would have been more straightforward in 2020 could encounter administrative bottlenecks in 2024 [7] [1].
3. Audits vs. recounts: old tools, new limits on their effectiveness
Observers and researchers emphasized that audits and recounts serve different purposes and that neither is a panacea for disputed elections; changes since 2020 affect the practical utility of both. Scholars flagged limits exposed in Georgia in 2020 and warned that procedural changes could reduce transparency or the remedial power of post‑election checks, while Verified Voting’s summaries underline that audits remain routine but recounts are reactive and vary widely by statute [8] [9]. Some 2024 reforms narrowed the scope of who may order recounts or increased evidentiary burdens, which reduces the frequency of recounts even as audits persist as standardized integrity checks — a divergence that changes the balance between routine verification and ad hoc remediation [4] [5].
4. Where the biggest differences from 2020 can be seen — state-by-state prescriptions
Comparative law tables compiled in late 2024 show heterogeneity across swing states, with some states maintaining 2020-era rules and others moving the goalposts. Verified Voting and Ballotpedia’s compilations show Michigan’s overhaul, Arizona’s threshold increase, and a mix of adjustments in seven battleground states that together produced a significantly different legal landscape than in 2020 [5]. Reporting also recorded legislative activity continuing into 2025, indicating the legal landscape remained in flux after the 2024 election cycle; Ballotpedia noted eight states adopting nine recount-related laws in 2024, and additional actions occurred in 2025 that further altered recount statutes in some jurisdictions [10] [11].
5. The big-picture consequence and open questions for future cycles
The aggregate effect of 2024 changes is a more fragmented national picture: some states made recounts more accessible or streamlined, others imposed new restrictions that raise costs or evidentiary hurdles, and federal and state certification timetables created novel timing pressures. This fragmentation produces uneven opportunities for post-election review compared with 2020 and raises questions about how courts, state administrators, and litigants will resolve disputes under revised rules. Key open questions remain about the empirical impact of these changes on transparency, speed, and public confidence; ongoing legislative activity through 2025 suggests the rules will keep evolving, and watchers should consult updated state compilations and legislative trackers for the latest, jurisdiction-specific details [12] [1] [5].