Fact check: In the 2024 general election, were voting machines in North Carolina manipulated so that a small percentage of votes for Harris were counted as votes for Trump?

1. Summary of the results

The claim that voting machines in North Carolina were manipulated in the 2024 general election so a small percentage of Harris votes were counted as Trump is not supported by the available reporting and expert analyses. Multiple investigative and fact‑checking articles, published between October 2024 and September 2025, find no credible evidence of systemic machine tampering in North Carolina; rather, reporting focuses on broader concerns about election denial narratives, attempts to access machines, and lists of “suspicious voters” intended for challenges ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Technical explainers and security experts described how modern voting systems are resilient and noted past claims of “machine switching” were traced to human error or misinterpretation, not malware or deliberate programming ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Legal records and state board actions reported through 2025 show contested procedures (mail‑in envelopes, same‑day registration litigation) but do not document verified machine reprogramming altering presidential vote totals in North Carolina ^{[7] [8]}. In sum, reporting to date attributes allegations to election denial organizing and investigatory requests rather than to authenticated forensic findings that would substantiate the specific manipulation claim ^{[3] [2]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Coverage often omits granular forensic details that would conclusively confirm or refute machine manipulation, such as published post‑election forensic audit reports, chain‑of‑custody documentation, and vendor logs; the absence of such public data can fuel uncertainty even where experts see no signs of tampering ^[4]. Advocates of the manipulation theory point to anecdotal videos and targeted challenges as evidence, arguing that patterns in ballots or precinct anomalies deserve independent review; reporters and election officials counter that similar anecdotes have previously been explained by user error, tabulation reconciliation, or procedural chain‑of‑custody issues rather than hacking ^{[6] [2]}. Additionally, political actors seeking access to voting machines claim transparency motives, while election officials warn such access risks integrity and privacy unless tightly controlled, illustrating competing frames about oversight versus security ^{[1] [7]}. These divergent emphases underscore that public trust hinges on transparent audits and timely, widely vetted technical reports.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Framing the allegation as fact — that machines were manipulated to convert Harris votes to Trump — benefits actors promoting election‑denial narratives and those seeking legal or political leverage to contest results; such framing amplifies distrust without presenting forensic proof, aligning with groups compiling “suspicious voter” lists and pushing challenges ^{[2] [3]}. Media or political actors emphasizing machine vulnerability may be advancing agendas for expanded access, litigation, or policy change regarding election systems, while vendors and officials emphasizing security may downplay procedural lapses to protect institutions; both positions can bias how incidents are portrayed ^{[1] [4]}. Fact‑checking and reporting to date stress that claims of machine switching have repeatedly been debunked or traced to non‑malicious causes; therefore, presenting the manipulation claim without corroborating forensic evidence risks propagating misinformation and advantaging actors who profit politically from undermining electoral legitimacy ^{[5] [6]}.