Which states conducted audits of Dominion machines after the 2020 election?
Executive summary
Multiple post‑2020 audits and hand recounts scrutinized ballots counted on Dominion Voting Systems equipment — most prominently the hand recounts in Georgia and Wisconsin that reaffirmed the tabulations — and high‑profile county or state reviews in Arizona (Maricopa), Michigan (county level), and Pennsylvania were also reported to have included audits or risk‑limiting checks tied to Dominion machines [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting shows widespread, often localized audits and recounts rather than a single, uniform statewide program everywhere Dominion equipment was used, and no single source in the provided set offers a comprehensive list of every state that ran a post‑election audit specifically of Dominion machines [6] [5].
1. Georgia and Wisconsin: hand recounts that undercut the conspiracy narrative
The hand recounts in Georgia and Wisconsin have been repeatedly cited as decisive post‑election examinations of ballots counted on Dominion equipment, and those recounts found that Dominion machines accurately tabulated votes, with any discrepancies attributed to human error rather than systemic machine failure [1]. These state recounts were among the most visible fact‑checking moments because they directly addressed claims that Dominion hardware or software had flipped or deleted votes, and both states’ manual reviews confirmed the original outcomes [1].
2. Arizona (Maricopa County): an intensive, controversial county audit
Maricopa County in Arizona underwent a protracted, atypical post‑election “audit” that gave private auditors and partisan actors extended access to ballots and materials — a process that county officials and even some state witnesses criticized for procedural and security risks — and the final report by auditors found no proof of fraud and in fact slightly increased Biden’s margin in the county [2]. That episode illustrates the distinction between routine, state‑run post‑election audits and politically driven, high‑scrutiny reviews that nevertheless concluded no systemic Dominion manipulation [2].
3. Pennsylvania and Michigan: risk‑limiting audits and county‑level checks
Pennsylvania had existing risk‑limiting audit pilots and disputed calls for wider “audits” of counties using Dominion machines; state officials noted audits and testing were part of the election certification process, and reporting described counties using Dominion equipment that underwent logic and accuracy testing as well as post‑election verification [4]. Fact‑checking and local reporting also show that at least some Michigan counties conducted audits or recounts that refuted broad Dominion conspiracy claims [3], demonstrating that many checks happened at county or local scale rather than as a single statewide action tied explicitly and only to Dominion hardware.
4. How many states overall — and the limits of the reporting
Dominion itself and third‑party trackers reported that its systems were used across roughly two dozen to nearly 28 states in 2020, and numerous “audits, recounts, and reviews” since November 2020 have been said to validate the accuracy of those systems — but the available sources do not provide a single authoritative roster enumerating every state that conducted a post‑election audit specifically targeting Dominion machines [6] [5] [7] [8]. Fact‑checkers and Dominion’s own statements emphasize that thousands of audits and recounts occurred at various jurisdictional levels (county, municipal, state) and that those checks repeatedly affirmed results [5] [6], yet the dataset provided here lacks a definitive, source‑verified list of "states that conducted audits of Dominion machines" distinct from routine certification, logic and accuracy tests, or county recounts.
5. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Political actors who demanded broader audits sought sweeping, often statewide examinations, while election authorities and many nonpartisan experts framed the post‑election audits as routine, localized safeguards that confirmed machine accuracy; Dominion and fact‑checkers pushed back against claims of systemic failure, and some partisan audits (e.g., Maricopa) drew criticism for methodology even as they failed to find evidence of fraud [2] [5] [6]. Given that some reporting sites and advocacy groups have clear agendas — either to cast doubt on results or to defend election technology — readers should note that the sources here reflect both official audit findings and contentious political pressure around those audits [2] [5].
Exact, source‑verified naming of every state that ran a post‑2020 audit explicitly of Dominion machines is not available in the provided material; the most concrete, repeatedly reported examples are Georgia, Wisconsin, Maricopa County/Arizona, and certain counties in Michigan and Pennsylvania, with many additional local audits and routine checks noted more broadly [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].