A controversial report has reignited debate over the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, raising allegations that undisclosed modifications to voting systems may have influenced results. According to investigative findings, a federally accredited lab quietly approved last-minute changes to election equipment used in more than 40% of American counties—without public review or independent verification.
Secret Software Updates and Missing Votes
The report highlights concerns surrounding Pro V&V, a certification lab responsible for testing voting machines in critical swing states. In early 2024, the lab allegedly authorized significant updates to ES&S voting systems, including:
-
Modified ballot scanners
-
Adjusted printer configurations
-
Unverified firmware upgrades
-
A new Electionware reporting tool
Rather than classifying these as major alterations requiring scrutiny, Pro V&V labeled them as “de minimis”—a technical term for minor changes that bypassed standard oversight.
Election integrity group SMART Elections later identified irregularities, including:
-
Discrepancies between voter testimony and recorded ballots
-
Unexplained vote shortages for certain candidates
-
Statistical anomalies in key districts
Suspicious Patterns in Vote Counts
In Rockland County, New York, multiple voters reported that their selections for independent Senate candidate Diane Sare were not reflected in official tallies. In one precinct, nine voters confirmed supporting Sare, yet only five votes were recorded. Similar mismatches appeared elsewhere.
More strikingly, in some Democratic-leaning areas, Kamala Harris’s name was allegedly missing from ballots entirely, despite strong Democratic turnout for other candidates. Meanwhile, Donald Trump received 750,000 more votes than GOP Senate contenders in these same regions—a statistical outlier that experts say defies typical voting behavior.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability
The lab at the center of the controversy, Pro V&V, operates with minimal oversight. Its director, Jack Cobb, has avoided public statements, and the company’s website went offline amid growing scrutiny.
The Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which accredits such labs, has no formal public review process. Two of its four commissioners were appointed by Donald Trump, raising further concerns about impartiality.
Legal Challenges and Broader Implications
In May 2025, a federal judge ruled that claims brought by SMART Elections warranted further examination. While the lawsuit (SMART Legislation v. Rockland County Board of Elections) cannot overturn the certified results, it may trigger broader investigations into election security.
Prominent figures have weighed in:
-
Elon Musk hinted at vulnerabilities, tweeting: “Anything can be hacked.”
-
Trump later remarked: “[Musk] knows those computers better than anybody… We won Pennsylvania in a landslide.”
What Comes Next?
The case could set a precedent for future elections, prompting calls for:
-
Stricter oversight of voting machine certification
-
Public access to testing logs
-
Independent audits of election software
As legal proceedings unfold, the debate over whether the 2024 election results truly reflect the will of the people continues to intensify.