Voter machine modifications just befoe 2024 election
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Allegations that voting machines were modified shortly before the 2024 U.S. election center on a federally accredited testing lab, Pro V&V, that reportedly approved four software and firmware updates between March and September 2024 and on watchdog filings and reporting that those changes were not widely disclosed [1] [2]. Some advocacy groups and investigative outlets say the updates touched ballot scanners, audit files and hardware elements like printers and ballot bins, while the lab and at least one testing director characterize the changes as de minimis or of no significance [1] [3] [4].
1. What reporting actually documents the modifications
Multiple outlets and watchdogs point to Pro V&V’s approvals of updates in the months before the election and to a Daily Boulder investigative piece claiming the lab quietly implemented changes to systems used by a large share of counties [1] [5]. Newsweek and other coverage say Pro V&V signed off on four updates between March and September 2024 and that SMART Elections and Dissent in Bloom flagged specific touches to ballot scanners and audit files [1] [5]. The Economic Times and Times of India summarize the same claims and list hardware work such as printer replacements and ballot box adjustments cited in reporting or the Election Assistance Commission filings [3] [4].
2. What proponents of the “major change” narrative argue
Watchdog groups like SMART Elections and commentators at Dissent in Bloom argue the updates were more than routine maintenance, alleging they were unannounced, not publicly tested and potentially expanded the attack surface for malware or manipulation, and those concerns underpin a lawsuit seeking recounts and discovery in Rockland County [1] [2] [5]. Reporting that the lab’s public presence diminished after the election is offered as circumstantial evidence that the updates and their approvals merit scrutiny [1].
3. The lab’s and other experts’ rebuttals
Pro V&V and at least one federally accredited testing lab director have pushed back, describing the changes as de minimis or “not of any significance,” and asserting that much of the reporting mischaracterizes routine certifications and hardware replacements [1]. Election experts interviewed in broader coverage emphasize that while election systems can have vulnerabilities, there is currently no publicly verified evidence of widespread manipulation of 2024 results attributable to these updates [6].
4. Technical context and why details matter
Voting technology involves firmware, software, printers, scanners, audit logs and election-management systems, and small changes can be routine (e.g., replacing printers, moving storage) or consequential depending on how they were tested, documented and deployed; the reporting specifies types of changes claimed but also shows disagreement about their severity and testing [4] [1] [7]. Independent security researchers and post-2020 coverage have repeatedly warned that procedural lapses and lack of transparency fuel risk and public mistrust even if practical exploitation is rare, so provenance, testing records and chain-of-custody details are what determine real risk [8] [7].
5. Legal and political fallout shaping the narrative
SMART Legislation’s lawsuit in New York and judicial orders allowing discovery have amplified the story and will force the production of documents that could clarify whether the updates were routine or improperly handled; at the same time, the litigation is unfolding against a backdrop of entrenched election-denial narratives and partisan incentives to amplify anomalies [2] [9] [10]. Journalists and experts warn that some actors may exploit genuine procedural lapses to push broader, unproven claims of a stolen election, so the motivations of watchdogs, media outlets and political actors merit scrutiny alongside the technical facts [9] [11].
6. What remains unresolved and what to watch for next
Public reporting documents that updates were approved and lists alleged changes, but independent, publicly available forensic evidence proving that those changes altered vote counts has not been established in the sources provided; forthcoming discovery in the Rockland County case and expert analysis of produced files and chain-of-custody records will be the key to substantiating or refuting claims [1] [2] [6]. Until those materials are disclosed and independently examined, the story is a mix of documented administrative approvals, strong expert skepticism about systemic manipulation, and politically charged interpretation of procedural opacity [1] [6] [5].