Which counties switched from Dominion to another voting vendor after the 2020 election and on what timeline did those transitions occur?
Executive summary
A small number of counties publicly cut ties with Dominion Voting Systems in the years after the 2020 election, often for political and reputational reasons rather than documented machine failures; reporting identifies Shasta County, California, and Rio Grande County, Colorado, as explicit examples of contracts canceled or rescinded around the time Dominion’s corporate standing remained under intense public scrutiny [1]. Nationwide, Dominion equipment continued to be used widely—across roughly two dozen states in 2020 and in many jurisdictions through the 2024 cycle—so a complete, county‑by‑county list of switches is not available in the sources provided [2] [3].
1. What the public record clearly shows: a few local cancellations, not a mass exodus
Contemporary reporting chronicles isolated instances where local officials declined to proceed with or rescinded contracts with Dominion rather than an organized wave of counties replacing Dominion with other vendors; two counties named in that coverage are Shasta County, California, and Rio Grande County, Colorado, which either canceled or rescinded agreements amid the prolonged fallout from post‑2020 conspiracy claims [1].
2. The timeline in the reporting: actions clustered after 2020 but reported in 2025 context
The sources that identify county cancellations place those decisions in the aftermath of the 2020 controversy and report them explicitly in coverage tied to Dominion’s surprise sale and rebranding events in 2025, meaning the documented rescissions referenced in reporting surfaced publicly by fall 2025 even if the local decisions were made earlier or incrementally [1] [4]. The material does not supply precise contract‑termination dates for those counties.
3. Why some counties moved away: politics and reputational risk, not proven machine failure
Multiple contemporary accounts explain that even election officials who believed the machines were reliable found it politically difficult to sign with a company vilified by conspiracy narratives, so reputational and political risk—rather than definitive technical or audit failures—drove some local decisions to avoid or drop Dominion contracts [1] [5]. Independent fact‑checking and audits repeatedly found no evidence that Dominion machines altered 2020 vote outcomes [2] [6], underscoring that buying decisions in some counties were shaped by political dynamics and public pressure.
4. What stayed the same: broad continued use across states and counties
Despite isolated local terminations, Dominion systems remained in wide use: Verified Voting and contemporaneous fact‑checks reported Dominion products were used in about two dozen states in November 2020 [2], and official certifications and state lists showed Dominion equipment operating in many counties through the 2024 cycle—Florida’s Division of Elections, for example, certified Dominion in multiple counties for 2024 [3]. This demonstrates that county‑level departures were exceptions within a landscape where many jurisdictions retained Dominion systems.
5. Limits of the available reporting and what cannot be asserted
The assembled sources do not provide a comprehensive, authoritative roster of every county that switched from Dominion to a different vendor after 2020, nor do they lay out a definitive timeline of each transition; where reporting names counties (Shasta and Rio Grande) it ties their actions to reputational fallout and reporting around Dominion’s later corporate developments rather than to a single nationwide replacement program [1]. Absent jurisdictional procurement records or a central data set—which the provided sources do not include—no exhaustive county‑by‑county switch list or full chronological sequence can be reconstructed here.
6. Balanced takeaway for readers tracking vendor changes
The credible record supplied shows isolated county contract cancellations driven largely by political and reputational considerations with a few named examples reported around the 2025 coverage of Dominion’s sale [1], while the broader pattern is one of continued Dominion presence in many states and counties into subsequent election cycles [2] [3]. To move beyond these snapshots requires cross‑checking county procurement documents, state certification lists, and local election‑board minutes—materials not contained in the present reporting.