Which counties in Michigan and Pennsylvania audited or recounted ballots involving Dominion machines after 2020?
Executive summary
Michigan officials conducted post‑2020 audits that explicitly examined ballots tabulated on Dominion equipment — most prominently a full hand audit of every presidential ballot in Antrim County, which validated the machine counts [1] [2] [3] — and the statewide hand‑count sampling that included Wayne County, which uses Dominion machines [4]. In Pennsylvania, 14 counties used Dominion systems and were subject to the routine pre‑certification statistical recount or pilot risk‑limiting audits that the Commonwealth required; those 14 counties are Armstrong, Bedford, Carbon, Clarion, Crawford, Erie, Fayette, Fulton, Jefferson, Luzerne, Montgomery, Pike, Warren, and York [5] [6] [7].
1. Michigan: Antrim named, statewide audit included Dominion jurisdictions
State reporting and post‑election reviews put Antrim County at the center of machine‑specific scrutiny after 2020: election officials audited every ballot cast for president in Antrim and concluded Dominion machines there accurately counted ballots throughout the county, contradicting outside forensic claims promoted at the time [1] [2] [3]. Beyond Antrim, Michigan ran a large statewide hand‑count audit — a randomly selected 18,162‑ballot exercise — that sampled ballots from jurisdictions using different vendors and explicitly noted Wayne County, a Dominion‑using jurisdiction, in its results [4]. The Michigan Bureau of Elections and the Secretary of State framed hundreds of local post‑election audits as confirming the accuracy of tabulation systems across the state [1] [2].
2. How Michigan’s audits were framed and contested
State officials and bipartisan local election officers characterized the audits and hand recounts as routine, transparent checks that affirmed certified results and machine accuracy [1] [2]. Opposing narratives used selective forensic reports and court filings to claim machine errors or tampering — for example, litigation materials referenced disputed forensic analyses of Antrim equipment — but state hand‑counts and multiple independent fact‑checks found the audits validated the original tallies and identified human or process errors rather than systemic machine fraud [8] [3]. Dominion’s own summary also emphasizes certification of county canvasses and judicial findings that the most explosive fraud claims lacked credibility [9].
3. Pennsylvania: 14 Dominion counties and statewide audit practice
Dominion reports that it provided equipment to 14 Pennsylvania counties: Armstrong, Bedford, Carbon, Clarion, Crawford, Erie, Fayette, Fulton, Jefferson, Luzerne, Montgomery, Pike, Warren, and York [5]. Pennsylvania law and practice required counties to perform a statistical recount of either 2% of ballots or 2,000 ballots before certification, and the state piloted risk‑limiting audits after 2016; reporting indicates most counties participated in audits, and the Department of State had been running or expanding those audits by 2020 [6] [7]. That statutory and administrative framework means Dominion‑equipment counties were among those subject to the routine audits and pilot risk‑limiting procedures deployed after the 2020 election [6] [7].
4. Specific Pennsylvania inspections, legal friction, and limitations of public records
Post‑2020 oversight efforts included targeted investigations and requests to examine equipment, but media reporting and court records show litigation limited access in at least one county when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court blocked a planned inspection of Dominion machines in January 2022 [6]. Independent reporting found no widespread machine failures in Pennsylvania’s Dominion counties and documented that claims of widespread vote switching lacked evidence; nonetheless, partisan actors continued to call for additional audits or inspections, an agenda that sometimes outpaced what public records or court orders permitted [7] [10]. Public sources supplied here do not provide a county‑by‑county post‑2020 docket listing every audit or recount for each Dominion county beyond the 14‑county vendor list and the statewide audit exercises, so this account is limited to documented statewide actions and named county audits.
5. Bottom line and competing narratives
Documented, official audits after the 2020 election verified machine tallies in the Michigan county most scrutinized (Antrim) and included jurisdictions that use Dominion machines in broader statewide sampling (Wayne) [1] [4] [2]. In Pennsylvania, the 14 counties that used Dominion equipment were subject to the routine pre‑certification recounts and the state’s audit pilot efforts, though attempts to inspect hardware in some counties encountered legal barriers [5] [6] [7]. Advocates for additional forensics and some partisan actors continue to press for more inspections; election officials and multiple audits reported by state sources concluded those steps were unnecessary to validate certified outcomes [1] [2] [7].