What specific lawsuits challenged 2024 county results and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
A single, prominent post‑election lawsuit has focused on county‑level 2024 results in Rockland County, New York: SMART Legislation (the litigation arm of SMART Elections) sued the Rockland County Board of Elections claiming vote-count discrepancies and asking for a full hand recount, and a New York Supreme Court judge has allowed discovery to proceed while motions to dismiss and stays are pending [1] [2]. Courts and commentators note that even if errors were found, the litigation is unlikely to change certified national outcomes because Congress has certified the 2024 results [3] [2].
1. The Rockland County lawsuit: who sued and what they asked for
SMART Legislation, joined by several Rockland voters and independent Senate candidate Diane Sare as a plaintiff, filed a complaint alleging vote-count irregularities in the 2024 presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County and seeking a full, public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and Senate ballots in the county [1] [4]. The plaintiffs’ complaint highlights sworn voter affidavits saying recorded tallies undercounted votes—citing instances where more voters swore they voted for Sare than the Board of Elections recorded—and points to statistical anomalies in precinct‑level presidential/Senate vote patterns as grounds for the recount request [1] [5].
2. Judicial response so far: discovery ordered, some claims dismissed
In open court, New York Supreme Court Justice Rachel Tanguay ruled that the allegations were serious enough to warrant discovery, ordering document requests and allowing evidence‑gathering to move forward; plaintiffs submitted extensive document requests and deposition plans as part of that process [1] [5]. At the same time, the court has already dismissed certain extreme remedies sought in the petition—specifically requests to invalidate certified 2024 results, order a new special election, or appoint a court monitor—while leaving the recount/discovery pathway intact [6].
3. Defendants’ posture and procedural skirmishes
Rockland County has responded by filing a motion to dismiss and seeking a stay of discovery, signaling a standard defensive strategy that aims to narrow or end the case before a costly recount or depositions occur; the county’s motion remains part of the docket as discovery proceeds under the judge’s timeline [1]. Local reporting and the BOE’s filings indicate the county disputes both the legal basis and the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ evidence to warrant the extraordinary relief they seek [6].
4. Substance of the allegations: affidavits, statistical claims, and voting‑machine scrutiny
Plaintiffs point to affidavits where voters assert they voted for Sare but the certified totals show fewer votes, and to precinct‑level statistical oddities—such as districts where large numbers chose a Democratic Senate candidate but allegedly none selected the Democratic presidential candidate—that they say make the results “statistically highly unlikely” compared with 2020 patterns [5] [4]. The filings also raise concerns reported in media coverage about a federally accredited testing lab, Pro V&V, and software changes to ES&S voting machines, though those claims have been reported primarily by outlets relaying secondary sources and are part of the plaintiffs’ broader theory rather than an adjudicated finding [3] [7].
5. Broader litigation landscape and likelihood of changing outcomes
Nationwide, dozens of election‑related lawsuits were filed in 2024; comprehensive trackers like Ballotpedia cataloged many cases, but legal analysts concluded few appeared poised to change certified outcomes or substantially alter vote‑count procedures across states [8] [9]. Commentators and court orders in the Rockland litigation acknowledge that congressional certification of the presidential result means this case cannot reverse nationwide certifications, even if localized errors were proven, making the likely remedies corrective (recounts, record corrections) rather than result‑altering [3] [2].
6. Competing narratives and institutional incentives
Plaintiffs frame the case as protecting voter constitutional rights and ensuring accurate historical records, while the county and many election‑administration observers frame it as a challenge that must meet high evidentiary thresholds to justify disruptive remedies; media and advocacy groups on both sides have incentives to amplify either the possibility of systemic error or the stability of certified results, and the court’s careful approach—allowing discovery but rejecting immediate invalidation—is consistent with balancing those competing stakes [1] [6] [9].