What audits, recounts, or court rulings followed challenges to Fulton County's 2020 results and what did they find?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Three formal tallies — the initial machine tabulation, a hand-conducted risk-limiting audit, and a machine recount — all produced similar results that affirmed Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in Fulton County and Georgia overall, even as subsequent reviews found procedural errors and some duplicated images that did not change the certified outcome [1] [2] [3]. State investigators and a Performance Review Board documented lapses in processes and recordkeeping, prompting a reprimand and appointment of an independent monitor, while courts generally dismissed broad legal attacks for lack of standing or failed to overturn results [3] [4] [5].
1. The three counts that confirmed the outcome
Fulton County’s 2020 presidential tally was subjected to three separate counts — the machine count on Election Day, a hand risk-limiting audit conducted Nov. 11–19, 2020, and a machine recount requested by the Trump campaign — and all three produced similar totals that left the certified result intact with Biden carrying the state by roughly 11,779 votes [1] [2].
2. State review and the Performance Review Board’s findings
A state Performance Review Board and other investigators found planning failures, inconsistent naming conventions in audit materials, missing or duplicated records in the Fulton audit materials, and operational missteps such as failure to use early scanning and separate responsibilities for absentee processing, which the report framed as avoidable procedural errors rather than evidence that the result itself was wrong [4] [6].
3. Recount irregularities flagged but not outcome-changing
The Georgia Secretary of State’s office and the State Election Board concluded that Fulton County used “improper procedures” during the recount and that some ballot images had been duplicated — findings that produced a letter of reprimand and an order to install an independent monitor for future elections — but both state officials and Fulton spokespersons stressed that the errors did not alter the certified results [3] [6].
4. Independent audits and academic critiques that dug deeper into data handling
Researchers and auditors have documented data-management problems: transcription gaps between ballot batch image files and the audit database, blank fields in key audit spreadsheets, and instances where some ballots appear to have been counted more than once in certain audit spreadsheets, prompting scholarly concern about the completeness and clarity of audit trails even as they stop short of proving fraud or changing the certified totals [7].
5. Court rulings and legal challenges that followed
Federal and state litigation largely failed to overturn the certified results: a prominent suit seeking inspection of ballots was dismissed for lack of standing and ultimately closed, and courts did not set aside the statewide outcome, even as the State Election Board referred violations for further attention and enforcement [5] [4]. Separately, more recent federal actions by the U.S. Justice Department have sought election records from Fulton County as part of broader reviews of compliance with record preservation, underscoring continuing legal probing of process rather than reruns of the 2020 tally [8] [9].
6. Continuing claims, new allegations, and the evidentiary gap
Since 2024–2025 some outlets and activists have amplified new figures and legal arguments — including claims that hundreds of thousands of advanced votes lacked required sign-offs — but those contested assertions have been reported by partisan outlets and remain disputed in the public record; core oversight findings to date are procedural failures and duplicated images rather than proof that vote totals were flipped or the statewide result was wrong [10] [11] [3] [1]. Where reporting is silent or inconsistent, public-source reviews and the Performance Review Board papers are the best-documented repositories of what investigators actually found [4] [7].