What did state-level audits and recounts find about the 2024 election results?
Executive summary
State-level post-election audits and recounts in 2024, where conducted, overwhelmingly reaffirmed the originally reported outcomes: risk-limiting audits and statutory recounts found only minimal discrepancies and did not change certified winners in major contests, with hand counts and samples confirming tabulation accuracy [1] [2] [3] [4]. Laws and procedures varied by state — some audits are routine and statistical while recounts are triggered by narrow margins or requests — and official reports emphasize human-error scale differences rather than systemic tabulation failures [1] [5].
1. How audits and recounts differ, and why that matters
Audits and recounts are legally and operationally distinct: audits (including risk-limiting audits, or RLAs) are usually statistical checks of samples of paper ballots meant to provide confidence the reported winner is correct, while recounts typically re-tally ballots for a specific contest, sometimes by hand or by re-scanning, often triggered automatically by narrow margins or requested by campaigns [1] [6]. The distinction matters because audits aim to detect outcome-changing errors with statistical assurance and are routine parts of post-election processes, whereas recounts are exhaustive and more likely to be requested when outcomes are close or contested [1] [7].
2. What statewide RLAs and audits found in key states
State-conducted RLAs and post-election audits reported very few discrepancies in sampled ballots in 2024: Pennsylvania’s statewide RLA found only seven vote discrepancies in the audited sample, the largest being a two-vote change, with officials attributing such differences to human error or ambiguous voter markings rather than machine malfunction or fraud [3]. Georgia completed a statewide hand-count RLA and the secretary of state’s office publicly reported audit data and ballot manifests to confirm voting system accuracy, framing the results as validation of the system’s integrity [2]. Verified Voting’s statewide summaries note that many states implemented or expanded RLAs in 2024 to provide statistical checks before final certification [8] [1].
3. Recounts: limited, targeted, and generally confirmatory
When recounts occurred in 2024, they were focused and outcome-confirming: Michigan’s recount of a Michigan House district and its statewide statistical audit and precinct-level hand counts affirmed the originally certified winner in the recounted legislative race and reported no evidence of a systemic problem — the statewide audits and procedural reviews were described as “careful, detailed, and thorough” by the Secretary of State [4]. Minnesota’s canvassing process similarly left only a small number of legislative contests unresolved pending county-level recounts, illustrating that recounts tend to matter most for narrow, seat-specific outcomes rather than overturning statewide results [9].
4. Scale and nature of discrepancies found
Across reported state audits, the discrepancies uncovered were tiny in absolute terms and typically explained by routine, human-scale issues — stray marks, interpretation of voter intent, or manual tallying lapses — not by broad tabulation errors or coordinated interference [3]. Verified Voting and other procedural summaries emphasize that tabulation audits routinely check accuracy and that most manual differences discovered in samples do not scale to change overall outcomes [1] [8].
5. What these findings do—and don’t—prove
These audits and recounts provide strong evidence that state election systems produced accurate certified results in 2024 where audits were completed, but the reporting should be read in context: audit methods, timing, and legal thresholds differ by state, and not every conceivable contest receives the same level of post-election scrutiny [6] [5]. The available state reports and audit summaries substantiate that audits are designed to detect outcome-changing errors and—in 2024—did not reveal such errors at scale [1] [3].
6. Alternative viewpoints and hidden agendas to note
Election officials and audit proponents present these results as validation of system integrity, while some critics argue that audits and recounts could be expanded or made more transparent; partisan actors have incentives to emphasize isolated anomalies or procedural grievances even when statistical audits show outcomes are reliable, an implicit agenda visible in public messaging around recount thresholds and audit transparency [2] [1]. Independent watchdogs like Verified Voting and organizations tracking recount laws provide neutral framing of procedures, but state statements and political commentary sometimes diverge in tone and emphasis [8] [2].