Fresh scrutiny has emerged over the 2024 U.S. presidential election, as new reports suggest voting machines used in a significant portion of the country were altered before votes were cast—without proper public oversight. The developments have triggered questions about election integrity, with particular focus on whether Kamala Harris’s defeat to Donald Trump may have been influenced by procedural flaws.
Report Claims Secret Modifications
An investigative article by Daily Boulder alleges that Pro V&V, a federally accredited testing laboratory, approved a series of major updates to ES&S voting machines used in over 40% of U.S. counties ahead of the 2024 election. These changes included firmware updates, reconfigured ballot scanners and printers, and a new Electionware reporting system.
Despite the scope of these changes, Pro V&V reportedly classified them as “de minimis”—a designation that typically applies to minor updates that do not require full-scale testing or public disclosure. That decision allowed the updated machines to be rolled out without triggering the normal certification processes or oversight from independent entities.
Watchdog Raises Alarm
The nonprofit watchdog group SMART Elections challenged the classification, stating that these were not minor changes and could significantly impact vote accuracy and transparency. The group argues that voters and election officials were not made aware of the updates, nor were the machines subjected to rigorous third-party testing.
The concerns became more prominent following reports of voting irregularities during and after the election. In Rockland County, New York, voters testified that ballots they cast did not align with the final tallies. Independent Senate candidate Diane Sare reported discrepancies across multiple precincts where supporters claimed to have voted for her but the official vote count did not reflect those numbers.
While these claims remain under investigation, they have fueled a broader debate over whether the lack of oversight in voting technology could have affected down-ballot results—and potentially even the presidential contest itself.
Statistical Red Flags
Election analysts have pointed to statistical anomalies that emerged in Democratic-leaning areas. In several precincts, reports suggest Kamala Harris’s name may have been missing from the top of the ballot, while other Democratic candidates received strong support. Some districts reportedly recorded zero votes for Harris, despite voter turnout favoring Democrats in other races.
In contrast, Donald Trump’s vote totals reportedly exceeded those of Republican Senate candidates by hundreds of thousands of votes in certain counties. Experts have noted that such a discrepancy is highly unusual, as presidential and Senate candidates typically perform within similar margins, particularly in partisan strongholds.
Pro V&V Under Scrutiny
At the center of the controversy is Pro V&V, the lab responsible for testing and certifying the voting machines involved. The lab plays a critical role in the election process by approving whether systems meet federal standards. However, critics argue that the lab operates with limited transparency.
Following the report’s publication, Pro V&V’s official website reportedly went offline, leaving behind minimal contact information. The lab has not issued a public statement addressing the allegations.
Pro V&V is accredited by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a federal body tasked with overseeing voting system testing. However, once a lab is accredited, it faces little to no ongoing public oversight. There is no public complaint mechanism, no external audit board, and no structured process for revoking certification if irregularities are discovered. Furthermore, EAC decisions are typically handled internally, without public hearings or independent investigations.
Legal Challenge Moves Forward
In a key development, a New York judge ruled in May 2025 that a lawsuit filed by SMART Elections can proceed. The case, SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections, alleges that the lack of transparency and the irregularities experienced during the 2024 election in Rockland County warrant judicial review.
The outcome of the lawsuit will not reverse the results of the presidential election, which were certified by Congress and officially declared Donald Trump the winner. However, legal experts note the case could uncover critical flaws in how voting systems are monitored and tested—and possibly prompt state or federal investigations.
EAC Faces Accountability Questions
The Election Assistance Commission’s structure has also come under renewed scrutiny. The four-member commission currently includes two members appointed by Donald Trump during his first term. Critics argue the commission lacks enforcement power and independence. Any disciplinary action against a lab like Pro V&V would involve a lengthy internal review, with no clear avenue for public participation or transparency.
As of June 2025, Pro V&V remains accredited and no formal investigation into the lab has been initiated by the EAC.
