Fact check: Which states implemented post-election audits in 2024 to ensure voting security?

1. What people claimed — the central assertions driving this question

The primary claims across the materials assert that several states implemented post-election audits in 2024 to ensure voting security and accuracy. Specific assertions include that Michigan conducted recounts, statewide statistical ballot audits, and procedural audits that confirmed election integrity ^[1]. Pennsylvania reportedly ran a 2% statistical audit and a statewide risk-limiting audit, finding only minor discrepancies and confirming general election accuracy ^[2]. Colorado completed a bipartisan statewide audit that statistically verified results and voting equipment performance ^[3]. Another source aggregates laws and practices across seven swing states, indicating variation in audit scope and implementation ^[5]. These claims set up two core points: which states did audits, and how convincing those audits were.

2. Which states actually ran audits — named examples and documented outcomes

Concrete, named examples in the available reporting identify Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Colorado as states that completed post-election audits in 2024 and publicly reported results that confirmed accuracy. Michigan’s formal recounts and statistical audits are described as confirming integrity and conducting post-election procedural reviews ^[1]. Pennsylvania’s reported audits included both a 2% manual or statistical sample and a statewide risk-limiting audit yielding only minor vote discrepancies ^[2]. Colorado’s bipartisan statewide audit is described as a statistical verification that voting equipment functioned properly and validated outcomes ^[3]. These state-level reports are the clearest affirmative evidence in the dataset.

3. Broader list: swing-state framework and uneven implementation

A synthesis of reporting lists Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin as seven 2024 swing states with varying laws and procedures for post-election audits and recounts ^[5]. This does not mean each state ran the same type or rigor of audit in 2024; rather, it catalogs where audit statutes or practices exist and where audits or recounts are feasible under state law. The seven-state list is useful as a map of audit ecosystems, but it should not be read as a definitive ledger of completed, statewide audits without corroborating state-specific reports ^[5]. That nuance matters for assessing which jurisdictions actually executed verifiable, public audits in 2024.

4. Quality and sufficiency — why some audits may be less convincing

A critical cross-cutting report examined post-election audits in seven swing states and found many were insufficient, inadequately documented, and untimely, limiting their ability to provide strong evidence that the election outcome was correct ^[4]. This evaluation contrasts with state-level narratives that auditors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Colorado publicly confirmed accuracy. The discrepancy highlights two possibilities: either some jurisdictions performed fully documented, statistically robust audits while others did not, or the standards and transparency of audit reporting vary enough that external reviewers judge many audits as falling short of best practices ^{[4] [1] [2] [3]}.

5. Where reporting overlaps and where it diverges — reading the mixed evidence

The sources overlap in naming Michigan and Pennsylvania as audited and confirmed, and Colorado as completing a bipartisan verification ^{[1] [2] [3]}. They diverge in assessments of overall audit sufficiency: state reports tend to emphasize confirmation of results, while an external review flagged widespread shortcomings across swing-state audits ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Additionally, a compiled listing of seven swing states provides context that audit laws exist in multiple jurisdictions but does not substitute for state-specific audit outcomes ^[5]. Readers should therefore treat confirmation claims as valid where state reports provide methods and outcomes, and treat broader positive inferences cautiously when external reviews identify documentation or methodological gaps.

6. Missing data, open questions, and implications for assessing "which states"

The provided materials do not offer a comprehensive, single roster of every state that conducted post-election audits in 2024; instead, they offer spot confirmations (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado) and a sweep of swing-state audit regimes ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}. Absent a centralized federal list in these materials, the safest conclusion is that multiple states performed audits—some statewide and statistically robust—while other jurisdictions either performed more limited reconciliations or had audits that external reviewers judged insufficiently documented ^{[4] [5]}. That gap matters for policymakers and the public seeking a complete inventory of audited states.

7. Bottom line for readers trying to verify 2024 audit activity

If you need a definitive list for legal, research, or reporting purposes, rely on state-certified post-election audit reports from secretaries of state or independent audit summaries; the materials here confirm Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Colorado as audited and verified in 2024, and identify seven swing states with audit laws or practices but mixed audit quality ^{[1] [2] [3] [5] [4]}. The evidence shows both confirmations of accuracy in some states and legitimate external critiques of audit sufficiency in others, so treat state confirmations as real but contextualize them against independent assessments that flag variability in rigor and documentation ^{[1] [2] [4]}.