What specific voting irregularities were alleged in Rockland County in 2024?

1. What the lawsuit actually alleges — a concise list that drives the case forward

The complaint filed by SMART Legislation presents a cluster of specific claims: unconfirmed reports that ES&S voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were cast, statistical irregularities in vote patterns across districts (including anomalous split-ticket results between presidential and Senate tallies), sworn voter affidavits alleging missing or uncounted ballots in particular districts, and contention that more voters signed affidavits saying they voted for independent Senate candidate Diane Sare than were recorded in the certified totals. The plaintiffs seek document production, technical information about machines and software, and a full hand recount of presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County. The judge’s decision to permit discovery signals the court finds the allegations sufficiently concrete to warrant examination rather than dismissal ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. The machine-alteration claim — technical change or substantive tampering?

Plaintiffs point to reports that ES&S machines used in parts of Rockland were modified in ways the complaint calls “secret” and potentially substantive, implying post-certification or pre-election tampering. Election officials and Pro V&V, the federally accredited testing lab that reviewed ES&S changes, characterize the modifications as minor equipment-level adjustments—relating to ballot boxes, printers, or file locations—and assert there was no significant change that would alter vote counts. The lab’s director publicly stated the changes were not substantive and that the lab remained operational, while the suit’s discovery requests aim to probe exactly what files, firmware or configurations were changed and when, to determine whether any change could plausibly affect tabulation ^[1].

3. Statistical anomalies and split-ticket patterns — improbable or explainable?

The complaint highlights statistical oddities such as precincts where hundreds voted for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand but none for the Democratic presidential candidate—patterns the plaintiffs say are highly unlikely and suggest miscounting or ballot-submission issues. Counter-explanations include phenomena like bloc voting in tightly knit communities, ballot undervoting (voters skipping one race), or local ballot formats that may cause apparent mismatches between races. A statistician cited by plaintiffs described results in several towns as “statistically highly unlikely” when compared to 2020 baselines; election officials argue demographic and turnout shifts can produce unexpected splits without implying fraud. The court’s discovery process should allow independent statistical review of ballot-level data, which is the practical test of whether these patterns reflect error, benign voting behavior, or something else ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Voter affidavits and alleged missing ballots — specific claims needing verification

Plaintiffs submitted sworn affidavits from voters and poll workers asserting missing ballots in particular districts, including claims of nearly 50% shortfalls in one district and roughly 40% in another. These affidavits form a central factual basis for requesting a hand recount, as they assert a tangible discrepancy between ballots cast and ballots counted. Election officials have countered that chain-of-custody logs, ballot accounting procedures, and audit trails do not support the scale of alleged shortfalls, and they have moved to dismiss the case. The judge’s order for discovery compels the county to produce chain-of-custody records, pollbook data, and machine logs, which will be the primary evidence to corroborate or rebut these affidavit claims ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Institutional responses and potential agendas — who says what and why it matters

Rockland County’s Board of Elections has filed motions arguing the lawsuit lacks merit and that certification stands; SMART Legislation and affiliated groups press for recounts and transparency. The Pro V&V lab’s public defense that changes were minor could reflect genuine technical findings, while plaintiffs and some advocacy groups frame the lab or vendor actions as insufficiently transparent. These competing positions reveal different institutional incentives: election officials prioritize preserving certified results and public confidence, testing labs defend technical findings and credentialing, and watchdog groups pursue processes they view as necessary for verifying integrity. Understanding these competing incentives is essential to interpreting both the strength of the claims and the court’s role as neutral fact-finder ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Where the case stands and what discovery will determine next

The court has allowed discovery to proceed with a months‑long timetable, meaning attorneys will obtain machine logs, vendor documentation, voter rolls, affidavits, and ballot accounting records; the judge did not immediately order a recount but left open remedies pending factual development. If discovery corroborates substantive machine alterations, missing ballots, or tally discrepancies unexplained by voter behavior, a hand recount or judicial remedies could follow; if discovery shows documentation and logs consistent with certified results, the suit may be dismissed. The litigation therefore shifts the debate from allegation to evidence: discovery will determine whether claims are procedural questions of transparency or substantive threats to the certified outcome ^{[2] [1]}.