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 did state election procedures and audits in 2024 differ from previous cycles?
Executive summary
States increased use of risk-limiting audits (RLAs) and changed which contests and ballots get reviewed in 2024, while many legislatures passed new election laws affecting procedures and timelines (see Virginia RLA activity and statewide summaries) [1] [2]. Audits in multiple states reported very small discrepancies — Georgia audited 442 batches with most matching machine totals and Pennsylvania’s RLA found six to seven vote differences, largest a two‑vote change — and some states expanded transparency tools like public seed rolls and audit files [3] [4] [5] [1].
1. Greater emphasis on RLAs — from pilot projects to statewide rolls-out
In 2024 several states implemented or expanded risk‑limiting audits as a central verification tool, not merely an optional or pilot process: Virginia reports conducting two RLAs after the November 2024 general election and describes statewide ballot‑polling and batch comparisons to meet a 10% risk limit, while Pennsylvania used an Arlo‑based RLA with a public dice‑roll seed to select batches [1] [4]. Verified Voting’s state‑by‑state review shows jurisdictions like Nevada phasing in RLAs while retaining older checks (VVPAT audits), illustrating that 2024 was a year of transition from spot checks toward statistically grounded RLAs in multiple swing states [6].
2. Variation across states in what gets audited — contests, ballots, and timing
States differed sharply on which contests they audited and which ballots were included: some RLAs targeted specific statewide contests (e.g., Pennsylvania’s state treasurer race), other states audited presidential or U.S. Senate contests (Texas selected presidential and Senate races), and Nevada kept VVPAT checks focused on in‑person DRE votes while moving toward RLAs for other ballots [4] [7] [6]. That means 2024 audits did not form a uniform national standard — in some places audits covered only subsets of ballots or contests while other states sought broader samples [6].
3. Transparency measures increased but with different mechanics
Several states made audit processes more publicly reproducible: North Carolina posted input files and audit code so the public can reproduce the random selection, Pennsylvania livestreamed a dice roll and used open‑source Arlo, and Georgia released batch manifests and urged independent verification via hash checks [8] [4] [3]. Those procedural transparency steps mark a clear change from earlier cycles where documentation was often less accessible, but the scope and technical accessibility of those materials varied by state [8] [4] [3].
4. Audit results: small, expected discrepancies dominated reporting
Post‑audit reports emphasized that most differences between machine and hand counts were minimal and typical of manual audits: Pennsylvania identified six to seven discrepancies with the largest two‑vote change and noted human error or ambiguous marks as common causes; Georgia found 86.1% of audited batches with no deviation and the remainder within expected hand‑count margins [5] [4] [3]. These official summaries portray 2024 audits as confirming overall accuracy while acknowledging routine, small variances.
5. Legislative churn changed procedures and timelines in many states
Beyond audits, state legislatures in 2024 continued to reshape election administration: Ballotpedia and the Bipartisan Policy Center document thousands of bills and dozens of new laws addressing registration, canvass timing, primary dates, and verification procedures — for example Arizona moved its primary date and tightened some provisional‑ballot deadlines, while other states enacted voter‑list maintenance or notice requirements [9] [2] [10]. Those legal changes altered how and when audits, canvasses, and recounts happen compared with prior cycles.
6. Differences from prior cycles: statistical audits, public tools, and more state law activity
Compared with earlier cycles, 2024 showed clearer adoption of statistically designed RLAs, wider use of open‑source audit tools and public seed procedures, and higher legislative activity reshaping election administration; Verified Voting’s and state reports document both phased adoptions (e.g., Nevada) and statewide RLA implementations [6] [1]. However, the move was not uniform — some states kept legacy audits (VVPAT, partial manual counts) or limited which ballots/contests were reviewed [6] [7].
7. Limitations, disputes, and open questions
Available reporting documents audit procedures and small discrepancy counts but does not uniformly answer whether all audits covered every ballot type or all contests in each state; Verified Voting notes most states audit only a few contests, limiting detection of localized errors [6]. Also, while many official statements present audits as confirmation of accuracy, opposition groups and litigation over procedures are not covered in the cited state audit reports and are therefore “not found in current reporting” here [3] [4] [1].
Sources cited: Virginia RLA page [1]; Verified Voting report [6]; Pennsylvania RLA and post‑audit releases [4] [5]; Georgia RLA release [3]; Texas audit program and announcements [11] [7]; North Carolina sample audit procedures [8]; Ballotpedia and Bipartisan Policy Center legislative summaries [9] [2]; analysis and context from Verified Voting and state releases noted above [6] [1].