Which states replaced Dominion Voting Systems after the 2020 election and why?

1. What the question really asks — and what the sources can’t fully answer

The query seeks a factual list of states that switched away from Dominion after 2020 and the motivations for those changes; the supplied reporting does not provide a single source that catalogs post‑2020 replacements statewide, so definitive, state‑by‑state “replaced Dominion” claims cannot be confirmed from these materials alone ^{[1] [8]}. Available coverage instead documents a patchwork: some jurisdictions considered or implemented equipment changes for routine reasons (aging machines, certification cycles), others engaged in litigation or policy debates sparked by conspiracy claims, and still others explicitly kept Dominion systems in place ^{[9] [3] [1]}.

2. Where reporting documents retention, not replacement

Several authoritative items in the record show states continuing to rely on Dominion or approving its equipment after 2020: the Florida Department of State approved Dominion machines for use in 18 counties, contrary to political claims they were banned there ^[1], and Georgia continued to use Dominion systems statewide under existing contracts ^{[2] [8]}. Coverage of Colorado noted election officials expecting continuity in operations even amid corporate turnover and rebranding, indicating contract and certification processes often prevent sudden, statewide swaps ^{[10] [8]}.

3. Why jurisdictions have changed equipment in some places — technical and policy drivers

When jurisdictions do move away from specific voting hardware, the reasons documented are largely technical and procedural rather than proof of election manipulation: aging Direct‑Recording Electronic (DRE) units without voter‑verified paper audit trails were being retired for more up‑to‑date equipment with paper records before and after 2020 ^[9], cybersecurity experts pressed for limiting touch‑screen ballot‑marking devices, and some localities pursued hand‑marked paper ballots for audibility and public confidence ^[3]. Those reforms often reflect ordinary procurement cycles, HAVA funding and vendor certification rules as much as political pressure ^{[9] [3]}.

4. The political and legal overlay — misinformation, lawsuits and market effects

Political assault and widespread misinformation about Dominion after 2020 produced lawsuits, high‑profile settlements and an extraordinary reputational effect that influenced procurement debates even where machines were not demonstrably flawed: recounts and audits in multiple battleground states confirmed Dominion tabulations ^{[5] [4]}, academic work found no evidence that Dominion technology depressed Trump’s vote share in Wisconsin ^{[6] [7]}, and Dominion’s defamation settlement with Fox highlighted how political narratives altered the company’s standing without proving technical fraud ^[1]. Those developments pushed some election officials and legislators to consider policy changes—sometimes toward more paper‑centric systems—even when audits showed no systemic machine tampering ^{[3] [9]}.

5. Bottom line and limits of this review

Based on the provided reporting, there is no authoritative list here of states that definitively replaced Dominion statewide after 2020; many states retained Dominion equipment under existing contracts or certification processes while some local jurisdictions changed technology for routine security, accessibility or auditability reasons ^{[1] [8] [9]}. Independent recounts and academic analyses repeatedly found Dominion machines accurately tabulated votes in 2020, which means technical failure or fraud has not been documented as the driving cause for wholesale statewide replacements in the sources reviewed ^{[4] [5] [6] [7]}. To produce a state‑by‑state inventory would require compiling post‑2020 procurement records and contract actions from each secretary of state or county election office—records not provided among these sources.