Which states conducted audits of their 2020 election results and what were the findings?

1. What “audit” meant in 2020: routine checks, RLAs, hand recounts

States used different audit types: risk‑limiting audits (RLAs) — statistical checks designed to confirm the reported winner — were performed in states including Georgia (which performed a full manual tally of the presidential contest because of its close margin) and Virginia (which conducted a statewide RLA of the November 2020 general election) ^{[1] [2]}. Other post‑election procedures included routine county tabulation audits and full recounts or statewide machine re‑tabulations, as North Carolina’s boards re‑ran ballots in a close contest and hand‑counted sample precincts in every county ^[3]. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission notes there is no single national standard; methods varied across jurisdictions ^[6].

2. Which states explicitly reported post‑2020 audits and what they found

Georgia completed a statewide RLA and a full manual tally of the presidential contest that “confirmed that the original machine count accurately portrayed the winner” and showed discrepancies within expected human hand‑count error ^[1]. Virginia’s Department of Elections reports RLA results for the Nov. 3, 2020 general election and states those results “confirm that the results in Virginia accurately portrayed the winners” ^[2]. North Carolina’s State Board and 100 county boards conducted audits and recount processes that, after re‑runs and partial hand recounts, led to bipartisan certification; the board said there is no evidence the certified results were inaccurate ^[3]. Texas’ Secretary of State released a Phase 2 forensic audit report covering four large counties (Collin, Dallas, Harris, Tarrant), finding that when procedures were followed, results were trustworthy, though the report cataloged procedural and administrative shortcomings in some counties ^[4].

3. National synthesis: academics and federal observers

A 2025 PNAS study assembled every available county‑level and higher audit from 2020 and produced nation‑scale numerical estimates concluding audits show an accurate vote count across the contests it examined ^[5]. Federal and nonpartisan observers, cited in contemporary reporting, characterized the 2020 election as highly secure; mainstream reporting after audits and recounts found no evidence of widespread fraud that would change outcomes ^{[7] [3]}.

4. Where audits found small errors — and why that matters

Audits and hand tallies routinely reveal small discrepancies attributable to human counting error or procedural lapses; Georgia’s recount documented county‑level changes usually of fewer than ten ballots and a maximum county error of 0.73% ^[1]. Texas’ forensic review likewise reported mostly that counties followed procedures but noted instances where they did not, framing those as administrative vulnerabilities rather than overturning outcomes ^[4]. Election science and state laws treat these small discrepancies as expected and manageable; RLAs quantify the risk that such errors could change a contest outcome ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Partisan review efforts vs. standard audits — distinctions matter

The Brennan Center’s review of five states distinguishes routine, bipartisan post‑election tabulation audits performed by election officials from partisan “forensic” reviews and legislatively driven investigations; it warns that many partisan review proposals lacked basic security, accuracy and reliability measures that characterize accepted audit practice ^[8]. This distinction explains why some highly publicized reviews drew criticism even while routine audits and recounts certified results.

6. Limitations in available reporting and open questions

Available sources compile many audits but do not list every local audit result in a single, fully exhaustive public table in these excerpts; the PNAS paper claims a comprehensive assembly of available audits but the user should consult that paper directly for full county‑level estimates ^[5]. State and county audit reports vary in format and scope; there is no national auditing standard, which complicates direct apples‑to‑apples comparisons ^[6].

7. Bottom line for readers

Audits performed in multiple states after the 2020 election — including Georgia’s full hand tally, Virginia’s RLA, North Carolina’s county audits and recount procedures, and Texas’ multi‑county forensic review — confirmed winners or found only small, explainable discrepancies; an academic synthesis reports that audits across 2020 contests show an accurate vote count ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. Where deeper or partisan reviews occurred, watchdogs and academic analysts flagged methodological and objectivity shortcomings that distinguish those efforts from standard post‑election audits ^[8].