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.
How do voting technology audits, chain-of-custody records, and statistical analyses assess the credibility of 2024 election fraud allegations?
Executive summary
Post‑election audits, chain‑of‑custody procedures, and statistical analyses each play distinct roles in testing fraud claims: audits and risk‑limiting audits (RLAs) hand‑count samples of paper ballots to confirm machine totals (e.g., Pennsylvania’s audits found only six discrepancies; p1_s2), robust statewide RLAs in Georgia and Virginia reported that results were confirmed [1] [2], and large post‑election audits in states like Ohio and Wisconsin returned accuracy rates near 99.99% or found no machine errors [3] [4]. Statistical anomaly studies and lawsuits alleging wider manipulation exist and are being litigated — some analysts claim improbable patterns in local returns (Rockland County analyses and lawsuits), but experts caution that statistical signals require careful interpretation and corroboration by physical evidence such as ballot recounts and chain‑of‑custody records [5] [6] [7].
1. What audits and RLAs actually test — and where they succeeded in 2024–25
Post‑election audits compare the paper record to machine totals; RLAs use a statistically‑designed random sample to limit the risk that a wrong outcome goes undetected. State offices reported RLA or audit confirmations of the 2024 results: Pennsylvania’s audits changed totals by at most two votes in a single instance and overall confirmed results [8], Georgia’s statewide RLA confirmed the outcome and published ballot manifests and machine tallies for public verification [1], Virginia met its 10% risk limit confirming the U.S. Senate outcome [2], and Ohio reported a 99.99% accuracy rate in its post‑election audits [3]. Wisconsin’s large audit of the presidential result found no machine counting errors and only five human errors across the sample [4] [9].
2. Why chain‑of‑custody records matter to credibility
Chain‑of‑custody documentation tracks who had ballots, when, and under what seals or supervision; it underpins the integrity of any recount or audit because auditors must be able to show ballots were not altered or swapped between Election Day and the audit [10] [11]. Best practices require signed logs, two‑person handoffs, tamper‑evident seals, and retention of ballot images and records — practices described by state guidance and advocacy groups as essential to “tell the story” of how an election was administered and to make audit results trustworthy [12] [13] [7].
3. What statistical analyses can and can’t prove
Statistical methods can flag unusual patterns — e.g., distributions with unexpected kurtosis or abrupt precinct shifts — and have a track record in identifying fraud in some historical contexts [14]. Researchers and litigants used statistical anomalies to question local 2024 results (Rockland County and other analyses), prompting lawsuits and calls for full hand recounts [5] [15]. But statisticians warn that anomaly signals can arise from complex sociopolitical behavior, model misspecification, or data aggregation choices; peer reviewers and methodologists urge that statistical flags require follow‑up physical evidence and transparent methods before concluding fraud [6] [14].
4. How auditors and courts treat competing findings
Where audits or RLAs examine paper ballots and chain‑of‑custody is intact, findings are treated as strong evidence; several states publicly released audit reports, manifests, and sample sizes to allow independent verification [1] [2] [8]. Conversely, when statistical claims point to anomalies but jurisdictions retain sealed ballots and the chain‑of‑custody is disputed or intact documentation is lacking, the next step is usually a full hand recount or judicial discovery — as seen where SMART Legislation’s complaints pushed discovery in New York courts seeking access to ballots for manual count verification [5] [15].
5. Where disagreements and political incentives shape interpretation
Advocates for audits and RLAs — including the Brennan Center and election administrators — present them as the gold standard to restore confidence [16] [17]. Meanwhile, activist groups and private analysts sometimes interpret statistical anomalies as decisive evidence of systemic manipulation and press for broader forensic reviews or criminal probes [18] [19]. Election officials and some academic statisticians counter that extraordinary claims need extraordinary, corroborating physical evidence (hand counts, chain‑of‑custody breaches, or forensic examination of machines) before upending certified results [6] [13].
6. Practical takeaway for assessing 2024 fraud allegations
A robust credibility assessment combines: (a) whether paper ballots exist and were reliably preserved under documented chain‑of‑custody [10] [7], (b) whether independent RLAs or hand counts of those ballots confirm machine tallies [8] [1] [2], and (c) whether statistical anomalies have been replicated, peer‑reviewed, and matched to concrete procedural failures or breaches. Available sources show many states’ audits confirmed reported outcomes and that statistical challenges remain contested and are proceeding through litigation and further scrutiny [8] [3] [5].