States that switched away from Dominion after 2020 election

1. Local decisions, not a single nationwide purge

Most documented changes after 2020 were made at the county or local level rather than by sweeping statewide bans. Examples frequently cited in reporting include Shasta County, California, which voted to terminate its Dominion contract in early 2023 after a 3–2 board vote ^[1], and rural Lander County, Nevada, whose officials voted in December 2021 to replace Dominion with Election Systems & Software (ES&S) ^[2]. Reporting frames these as local political decisions driven by pressure and controversy rather than technical failures of Dominion systems ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Misinformation and political pressure as the proximate causes

News stories and local statements link many contract terminations to the wave of false claims about Dominion’s role in the 2020 election. Dominion and many election‑security experts said the conspiracy theories were debunked, and federal agencies reported no evidence machines altered votes; nonetheless, the brand became politicized and that politicization drove officials to reconsider contracts ^{[4] [5] [3]}. Dominion itself has pointed to lost contracts and business opportunities in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Tennessee as consequences of misinformation ^[3].

3. Financial and administrative fallout cited by Dominion and local officials

Dominion has argued the post‑2020 controversy cost the company contracts and opportunities; reporting quotes Dominion saying it lost business and officials noting personal safety concerns when debating re‑contracting ^[3]. Conversely, some local officials framed terminations as fiscal or operational decisions—for example, a county board that argued withholding funding could save money while switching vendors ^[2]. Both narratives appear in the record: Dominion cites reputational and financial harm, while some local leaders emphasize cost savings or political accountability ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Contracts and usage numbers matter — but they are dispersed

Several outlets place Dominion’s footprint broadly: Forbes and other reporting document Dominion work with many states and local governments prior to 2020 ^[6]. Reuters and other coverage show isolated counties switching vendors ^[2]. There is no single source in the provided reporting that compiles every jurisdiction that switched away from Dominion after 2020; instead, the record is a patchwork of county‑level votes, contract non‑renewals and selective state references ^{[6] [2]}.

5. Where reporting points but does not prove — states referenced

Some reporting and Dominion statements call out specific states where contracts were terminated or opportunities were lost, naming Nevada, Pennsylvania and Tennessee as examples cited by Dominion ^[3]. That language comes from Dominion’s claims about lost contracts and from local reporting of individual county actions ^{[3] [2]}. Available sources do not provide a validated, exhaustive roster of “states that switched away” in the sense of statewide replacements of Dominion systems ^{[3] [2]}.

6. Competing perspectives and motivations

Coverage shows competing explanations for the same actions: officials who removed Dominion machines often described concerns about public trust, political pressure, or cost ^{[1] [2]}. Dominion and election‑security experts countered that audits, recounts and federal agencies found no evidence Dominion systems flipped votes and argued terminations reflected misinformation’s harm ^{[4] [5]}. These are both in the record: local officials’ votes and Dominion’s rebuttals are separately documented ^{[1] [4]}.

7. How to read the patchwork evidence going forward

The best conclusion supported by the provided reporting is that some counties and a few local jurisdictions formally moved away from Dominion after 2020, often amid partisan pressure and false allegations, but there was not a single uniform state‑level exodus documented in these sources ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If you need a precise, up‑to‑date list of jurisdictions that ended or changed Dominion contracts, current reporting does not supply a consolidated list — you would need to consult state and county procurement records or an updated investigative compilation beyond the provided sources ^{[2] [6]}.

Limitations: This summary uses the supplied articles, which cite individual county votes, company statements and reporting aggregations; those sources do not claim to be exhaustive and do not present a complete state‑by‑state tally of all contract changes after 2020 ^{[2] [3] [6]}.