Fact check: North Carolina encountered ballot irregularities on electronic voting machines during the 2024 presidential election

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal limited evidence supporting the claim of ballot irregularities on electronic voting machines in North Carolina during the 2024 presidential election. Only one specific incident was documented: a voting machine in Kannapolis temporarily stopped working, but the issue was resolved and ballots were secured and counted under bipartisan supervision ^[1]. This incident demonstrates that while technical malfunctions occurred, the established safeguards functioned properly to maintain election integrity.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections actively worked to debunk various myths and rumors about voting irregularities, emphasizing the security of voting systems and the presence of paper trails ^[2]. Election officials prepared for and addressed minor equipment malfunctions while combating misinformation through clear communication and transparency ^[3].

Multiple sources focused on different electoral issues rather than electronic voting machine irregularities, including voter turnout and election protection efforts ^[4], general election security concerns ^[5], and emergency measures for Hurricane Helene-affected areas ^[6]. Additionally, several sources discussed disputes over voter eligibility and ballot counting in the North Carolina Supreme Court race, involving court decisions about identification requirements and ballot curing processes ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement lacks crucial context about North Carolina's robust election security infrastructure. The state maintained comprehensive safeguards including paper trails for all votes and bipartisan supervision of ballot handling ^{[1] [2]}. When technical issues arose, established protocols ensured ballot security and proper counting procedures.

Election officials proactively addressed misinformation by creating resources to counter false narratives about voting irregularities ^[2]. The state also implemented extraordinary measures to maintain election access and security in areas affected by Hurricane Helene, demonstrating institutional resilience ^[6].

The analyses reveal that most electoral disputes in North Carolina centered on voter eligibility and ballot curing procedures rather than electronic voting machine malfunctions ^{[10] [8] [9]}. This suggests that the primary electoral controversies involved legal interpretations of voting procedures rather than technical equipment failures.

Political actors and organizations promoting narratives about widespread electronic voting irregularities would benefit from undermining public confidence in election systems, potentially advancing agendas that favor alternative voting methods or increased election oversight that could benefit specific partisan interests.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement presents misleading implications by using the plural "irregularities" when evidence shows only isolated technical malfunctions that were properly resolved ^[1]. The framing suggests systemic problems with electronic voting machines when the documented evidence indicates effective safeguards and resolution procedures.

The statement omits critical information about North Carolina's election security measures, including paper trails and bipartisan oversight that ensured ballot integrity even when technical issues occurred ^{[1] [2]}. This omission creates a false impression of vulnerable election systems.

The timing and context are significant: while minor equipment malfunctions are normal occurrences that election officials routinely handle ^[3], framing these as "ballot irregularities" without mentioning successful resolution protocols amplifies concerns disproportionate to the actual impact on election integrity.

The statement may serve interests of those who benefit from promoting distrust in electronic voting systems, including vendors of alternative voting technologies, political organizations seeking to challenge election results, or groups advocating for more restrictive voting procedures that could affect voter access.