A new investigative report is reigniting debate over the integrity of the 2024 U.S. presidential election that ushered in the Donald Trump administration.
Serious allegations have emerged that voting machines used across more than 40% of U.S. counties were altered without public oversight or formal testing. The revelations come amid a pending lawsuit in New York and claims that Kamala Harris may have been the rightful winner of the election.
The allegations, reported by the Daily Boulder and amplified by watchdog group SMART Elections, focus on Pro V&V—a federally accredited private lab responsible for certifying electronic voting machines in multiple states, including Pennsylvania, California, Florida, and New Jersey.
According to the report, Pro V&V approved sweeping firmware and software updates to ES\&S voting systems ahead of the 2024 election but classified the changes as “de minimis,” effectively sidestepping mandatory public notice or rigorous testing.
What Was Changed?
The updates reportedly included:
- New ballot scanners
- Printer reconfigurations
- Firmware upgrades
- A redesigned Electionware reporting system
These were implemented quietly and without third-party review. Experts say classifying these changes as minor allowed them to bypass the Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) transparency requirements.
“This wasn’t just a glitch in some sleepy county,” said a spokesperson from SMART Elections. “It was a stress test of our entire system.”
Evidence of Anomalies
In Rockland County, New York, multiple voters submitted sworn affidavits stating their ballots didn’t reflect their selections. Senate candidate Diane Sare reportedly lost votes in several districts where supporters claimed to have voted for her—some precincts showed as few as three votes, where five or more voters attested to choosing her.
Even more startling, in multiple Democratic-leaning districts, Kamala Harris’s name was allegedly missing from the ballot altogether.
Despite strong Democratic turnout for other candidates like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Harris received zero votes in those areas—an anomaly experts say is statistically improbable.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump reportedly received over 750,000 more votes than down-ballot Republican Senate candidates in those same counties, raising suspicions of artificially inflated totals.
“That’s not split-ticket voting,” noted political newsletter Dissent in Bloom. “That’s a mathematical anomaly.”
Who Is Watching the Voting Labs?
At the center of the storm is Jack Cobb, director of Pro V&V, the firm responsible for certifying the machines. After the story gained traction, the lab’s website reportedly went offline, leaving behind a generic contact number and email. No public logs, technical documentation, or audit trails are currently available for review.
Though Pro V&V is certified by the EAC, critics argue the agency provides insufficient oversight. Once labs are accredited, there is no formal process for the public to file complaints or demand investigations. Two of the EAC’s four commissioners—Benjamin Hovland and Donald Palmer—were appointed by former President Trump.
As of July 2025, Pro V\&V remains fully accredited, with no ongoing federal investigation into its conduct.
Lawsuit Clears First Hurdle
In a key legal development, Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled in May that the claims brought by SMART Elections were credible enough to proceed. The case—SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections—is scheduled for hearing this fall.
While the lawsuit cannot alter the outcome of the 2024 election, which was certified by Congress with Trump declared the winner, it may open the door to state and federal probes into election security protocols.
Political commentator John Pavlovitz didn’t mince words:
“Kamala Harris may have won.”
A Campaign That Defied the Result?
During the 2024 cycle, Harris consistently polled well in battleground states, drew enthusiastic crowds, and dominated in televised debates—so much so that Trump skipped the second debate altogether.
And yet, Trump won.
Fueling the suspicion were cryptic social media posts by Elon Musk, a vocal Trump supporter, including:
“Anything can be hacked.”
“Without me, Trump would have lost the election.”
Trump himself later stated:
“He [Musk] knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.”
Beyond One Election
The implications of the report extend well beyond 2024. With no public review process for machine certification, critics warn that future elections could be quietly manipulated without voters’ knowledge.
“If one underfunded watchdog group can dig up this much from a quiet New York suburb,” SMART Elections warned, “what else is rotting in the shadows of this country’s ballots?”
As the court case heads to trial later this year, election officials, lawmakers, and voters alike may soon be forced to reckon with one of the most uncomfortable questions in American democracy:
What if the wrong candidate won?
