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.
Did Hart InterCivic machines have widespread use in the 2024 election?
Executive Summary
Hart InterCivic systems were certified and deployed in a number of U.S. jurisdictions for the 2024 election cycle, but they did not dominate nationally; Dominion Voting Systems and ES&S remained the largest suppliers, and no authoritative dataset shows Hart achieving widespread, nationwide market share in 2024. Available evidence shows targeted state and county-level certifications and deployments — including California approvals and isolated county uses — consistent with a decentralized, patchwork adoption of vendors across states [1] [2] [3].
1. What people claimed — and why the phrase “widespread use” matters
The core claim under scrutiny is whether Hart InterCivic machines saw “widespread use” in the 2024 U.S. elections. That phrase implies broad, multi-state penetration or a large national market share comparable to the top vendors. Independent reporting and election-technology surveys emphasize that U.S. voting equipment procurement is decentralized, handled by states and counties rather than a single federal authority, which means vendor footprints vary widely by jurisdiction and a firm can be significant locally without being dominant nationally [4] [3]. Because no single national registry publishes definitive deployment counts for 2024, claims of nationwide predominance require careful qualification and cannot be accepted without granular county-level purchase and certification data [2].
2. What the certification record actually shows — approvals, not nationwide dominance
State certification documents and vendor materials make clear Hart’s Verity Voting system and related products were evaluated and approved for use in multiple states in the lead-up to 2024, including formal certifications in states such as California, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania, which legally permit local jurisdictions to deploy the equipment [2] [1]. Certification is a regulatory green light, not evidence of mass deployment; a vendor can hold approvals while only some counties actually operate its machines on Election Day. Certification records therefore establish Hart’s eligibility for use in many places but do not quantify how extensively the systems were used in the 2024 election [2].
3. Where Hart was visibly present — examples of local deployments
Public records and local election office announcements document Hart systems in particular jurisdictions: for example, Hart Verity was used in Ulster County in a 2023 general election and Hart has historically supplied counties in Texas, Hawaii, Oklahoma and other locales, though some older models like the eScan are no longer used in U.S. elections [5] [3] [6]. These instances show localized and sometimes historic footprints rather than a sweeping national rollout. The presence in discrete counties and the continuation of certification in some states explain why Hart appears repeatedly in lists of certified vendors even while its installed base remains modest compared with the largest manufacturers [5] [3].
4. Market context — Dominion and ES&S remained the major players
Industry analyses and fact checks for the 2024 cycle highlight a concentration of installed systems with Dominion Voting Systems and Election Systems & Software (ES&S) across many states, making them the most visible manufacturers on Election Day. Hart is consistently listed among active certified vendors but not identified as the market leader in public data or reporting [4] [3]. The absence of a centralized, up-to-date public tally of machines by vendor for 2024 complicates head-to-head comparisons, but the best available state certification and deployment snapshots point to Hart as a meaningful but smaller participant rather than a nationwide standard-bearer [4] [3].
5. How narratives form — vendors, media, and misinformation risks
Different stakeholders have incentives that shape narratives: vendors emphasize certifications and new partnerships (for example, Hart’s publicized work with Microsoft on ElectionGuard) to project momentum, local officials stress successful local deployments, and critics seeking to magnify or minimize vendor presence may cherry-pick certifications or county examples to support broader claims [7] [8]. The decentralized governance of U.S. elections creates fertile ground for overgeneralization, where citing a handful of county uses can be mischaracterized as “widespread” unless accompanied by comprehensive deployment data, which is not available in a single authoritative source for 2024 [7] [2].
6. Bottom line — measured conclusion from the evidence
Hart InterCivic was a certified and active vendor in the 2024 election cycle with documented county-level deployments and state certifications, which shows relevant use, but the evidence does not support describing its presence as broadly widespread across the U.S. in 2024. The accurate characterization is that Hart had a notable but limited and regionally concentrated footprint, while Dominion and ES&S retained larger national presences; claims of widespread national use of Hart machines lack backing from a comprehensive, public national deployment dataset [1] [3] [4].