Were there any recounts, legal challenges, or certification disputes affecting Kamala Harris’s 2024 vote totals?
Executive summary
A single, localized legal challenge in Rockland County, New York — centered on statistical anomalies and precinct tallies that purportedly showed zero votes for Kamala Harris in some districts — has prompted plaintiffs to seek a full hand recount and broad discovery; that challenge is proceeding in court but has not altered the certified 2024 presidential result (Donald Trump’s victory) [1] [2] [3]. Nationally, there were no widespread recounts, certification reversals, or legal rulings that changed Harris’s nationwide vote totals or the outcome certified by Congress [1] [4].
1. The Rockland County lawsuit that triggered scrutiny
In June 2025 SMART Legislation (the legal arm of SMART Elections) filed suit in Rockland County alleging that multiple voting machines and reporting anomalies left presidential votes — notably for Kamala Harris — uncounted in several districts, and the complaint asks the court for a full hand recount of ballots cast on the disputed machines and authority for broad discovery (subpoenas for machine logs, vendor communications and sworn testimony) [1] [5] [6].
2. What plaintiffs contend and what the courts have allowed so far
Plaintiffs point to clusters of zero or unusually low presidential votes juxtaposed with substantial votes for other Democratic candidates (for example, districts where many voters chose a Democratic Senate candidate but none reportedly chose Harris), and argue those patterns defy statistical expectation and justify a hand recount and review of machine logs; some reporting says a New York judge has allowed discovery and set timelines for further proceedings, and the case could lead to a hand recount in the affected machines or districts [1] [2] [7].
3. Pushback from county officials and alternative explanations
County attorneys and election officials have pushed back, arguing the petition lacks legal merit and that the petitioners may not qualify for a recount under state law; local officials and analysts also note plausible non-fraud explanations such as bloc voting, ballot-marking behavior, reporting quirks or administrative errors — explanations explicitly advanced in coverage and by some experts cited in reporting [8] [9] [1].
4. Broader technical and vendor questions raised by reporting
Separately, reporting flagged that an accredited testing lab (Pro V&V) signed off on several voting-system updates in 2024 that watchdogs called “de minimis” and which some critics say lacked public scrutiny; those allegations are being used by plaintiffs and watchdogs to argue for greater transparency and post-election examination, although the vendors and some officials dispute that portrayal [5].
5. Why the litigation so far does not change the certified outcome
All sources converge on a key procedural fact: the 2024 presidential election was certified and Donald Trump was sworn in for his second term, and no court ruling tied to the Rockland County challenge has undone that certification or altered the national Electoral College result; courts can order local recounts and discovery, but the lawsuit is, at present in reporting, a localized challenge that could reveal errors or procedural problems without overturning the nationally certified outcome [1] [2] [4] [3].
6. What is known, and what remains unresolved
What is documented in the reporting is that a live legal challenge exists, plaintiffs seek a hand recount and discovery, and officials dispute the legal standing of the petition — but none of the sources show a completed hand recount that changed Harris’s vote totals or any state or federal certification dispute that reversed results; the case’s outcome, potential ballot comparisons, and any remedial findings remain to be seen as the litigation advances [1] [8] [10].