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.
Fact check: What states had the most secure voting systems in 2024 according to election security experts?
Executive Summary
There is no authoritative, evidence-based list in the reviewed reporting that names which U.S. states had the most secure voting systems in 2024; the sources reviewed instead describe general progress, remaining vulnerabilities, policy proposals, and local risks without ranking states. Experts emphasize improvements like updated federal guidelines and better physical security, while warning about persistent cybersecurity gaps, misinformation, and politicized local officials that complicate any simple “most secure state” designation [1] [2] [3].
1. Why you won’t find a simple list of “most secure” states — the data aren’t in the reporting
The items analyzed do not identify particular states as the most secure in 2024; instead they document systemic themes—guideline updates, calls for verifiability, and localized threats—that inform election security without producing a state-by-state ranking. No reviewed piece offers comparative metrics or an authoritative audit that declares top-performing states for 2024, which means any claim naming specific states as the most secure is unsupported by these sources [4] [1] [2]. The absence reflects both fragmented state administration and evolving standards, making apples-to-apples comparisons difficult.
2. What concrete federal steps signal improved security — but not a state leaderboard
Federal progress is visible: the Election Assistance Commission’s certification of a voting system to the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0 represents a material upgrade in cybersecurity and accessibility standards. VVSG 2.0 adoption signals stronger baseline protections, yet certification of equipment does not equate to comprehensive statewide security because implementation, maintenance, training, audits, and local practices vary widely [2]. Experts stress that hardware certification is necessary but insufficient to declare whole states “most secure” [1].
3. Expert assessments stress remaining vulnerabilities and the need for verifiable ballots
Election security analysts and advocates highlight that the U.S. has strengthened physical infrastructure but still faces cybersecurity shortfalls and integrity gaps that vary by jurisdiction. The debate around mandating End-to-End Verifiable (E2E-V) systems and other verifiability measures reflects this: proponents say such systems would materially raise confidence and detect manipulation, while practical rollout and certification challenges limit immediate adoption [1] [5]. Thus, measures that would justify a “most secure” label remain proposals rather than nationwide realities.
4. Misinformation and politicized local officials complicate security assessments
Reporting documents how misinformation and the rise of election-denying or conspiracy-aligned local officials introduced new administrative risks in multiple states, undermining trust and potentially operational consistency. Investigations found dozens of such actors in key roles, which increases the difficulty of asserting broad claims about state security because localized governance failures can outweigh technical safeguards [6] [3]. Any credible ranking must therefore weigh administrative integrity alongside technical protections.
5. Emerging technologies and experiments show promise — but are not yet decisive
Research into improved remote voting protections and experimental e-voting systems (for example, TRIP and coercion-resistant methods) points to future gains in security. These innovations could reshape assessments if field-tested and widely adopted, yet they remained experimental in the period under review and thus do not support declaring particular states as most secure in 2024 [7]. The literature urges pilots and careful evaluation before drawing comparative conclusions.
6. What a defensible “most secure” determination would require
A reliable ranking would need standardized, transparent metrics applied across jurisdictions: paper ballot usage, routine risk-limiting audits, chain-of-custody protocols, certified equipment, cybersecurity staffing and incident response capacity, and impartial election administration. None of the reviewed sources provides that comprehensive, comparative dataset for 2024, though individual elements—like VVSG 2.0 certification and calls for E2E-V systems—offer parts of the picture [2] [5].
7. How to interpret potential agendas and gaps in coverage
Sources emphasize different priorities: federal agencies highlight technical certification and standards, academics push verifiability and research prototypes, and investigative reporting focuses on political threats from local actors. Each framing serves an agenda—promoting regulation, innovation, or accountability—and that plurality explains why no single, uncontested state ranking emerges from the corpus [4] [6] [8]. Readers seeking a definitive answer should demand transparent, cross-jurisdictional metrics and up-to-date audits rather than rely on anecdote or partial indicators.
Conclusion: based on the reviewed materials, no credible, multi-source determination identifies which states had the most secure voting systems in 2024; instead, the evidence documents meaningful improvements, unresolved vulnerabilities, and governance risks that must be measured with standardized metrics before naming any state a leader [1] [2] [3].