How did post-2020 voting technology reforms affect machine certification and audits in 2025?

1. Paper trails became the baseline — but implementation varies

Election‑technology guidance and the Trump administration’s 2025 executive order emphasized “voter‑verifiable paper record[s]” as essential to public trust, codifying a long‑running push toward paper ballots or ballot‑marking devices that produce a checkable printout; Verified Voting notes paper records are in use in every state except Louisiana at the time of that analysis ^[1]. That uniform statement of principle strengthened the rationale for audits that rely on paper manifests, but it did not create a single national certification regime — states still choose equipment models and certification processes ^[1].

2. Certification: federal signals, state control

Available sources describe federal statements and executive actions with tech implications but make clear that election administration remains state‑run; the EO underscores paper‑backed methods but does not replace state certification systems ^[1]. State legislatures remained the locus of substantive change in 2025: reporting shows a decline in expansion‑oriented election laws and a rise in bills focused on list maintenance and voter verification, which indirectly affect certification priorities and procurement decisions at the local level ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Audits improved where paper records existed; political friction grew

When jurisdictions had voter‑verifiable paper records, risk‑limiting and manual audits gained credibility because they could use auditable paper evidence rather than machine memory alone — an outcome consistent with Verified Voting’s emphasis on paper records ^[1]. At the same time, 2025 state‑level activity included restrictive measures affecting list maintenance and mail voting that have heightened partisan scrutiny of audits and certification choices, increasing pressure on election officials ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Project 2025 and federal proposals shifted attention to access to voter rolls

Advocacy groups and policy reports flagged Project 2025’s proposals to allow broader federal access to state voter rolls and to criminalize certain election‑related errors; those proposals, if enacted, would alter how states justify certification and audit regimes and could lead to tighter controls on data sharing or more aggressive list‑maintenance practices (Civil Rights reports and summaries of Project 2025) ^{[4] [5]}. Sources characterize Project 2025 as seeking institutional shifts that would reshape enforcement and data access ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Audit infrastructure outside voting tech: standards and quality pressures

Broader audit‑and‑quality‑control reforms in 2024–25 — largely in the financial and governmental audit realms — show a regulatory trend toward more rigorous documentation, technology‑assisted analysis, and quality‑management systems with effective dates clustered in late 2025 (PCAOB and GAO materials). Those developments do not directly govern election audits, but they signal a general policy climate pushing for updated audit standards and technology governance that state election officials and vendors may reference when designing certification or audit procedures ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

6. Two competing dynamics: modernization versus politicization

One dynamic is modernization: adoption of paper records, clearer audit protocols, and interest in accessible voting technology (including efforts under HAVA and EAC accessibility initiatives) aim to strengthen verifiability and inclusion ^{[9] [1]}. The opposing dynamic is politicization: legislation and federal proposals in 2024–25 narrowed the net of pro‑access reforms and introduced heightened scrutiny and contested claims about voter rolls and fraud, increasing the political stakes of certification and audit choices ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

7. What sources don’t say — and therefore what remains uncertain

Available sources do not mention a single, nationwide change to machine certification rules that uniformly overhauled federal certification in 2025; they do not document a new federal machine‑certification regime replacing state control ^{[1] [2]}. They also do not report unified national data on the adoption rate of specific audit methods (e.g., risk‑limiting audits) tied directly to post‑2020 reforms; reporting focuses on principles, executive actions, and state legislative trends ^{[1] [2]}.

8. Bottom line for practitioners and voters

Practically, jurisdictions that invested in voter‑verifiable paper records after 2020 had clearer paths to meaningful post‑election audits by 2025 ^[1]. But the national picture is fragmented: federal rhetoric and some executive actions pushed for verifiable paper records, while state legislatures and political initiatives shaped the pace and political acceptability of certification and audit regimes, producing a contested and uneven terrain for election technology oversight ^{[1] [2] [3]}.