A bombshell report has sparked nationwide concern over the integrity of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, suggesting that Kamala Harris may have rightfully won the race.
According to the report by The Economic Times, a federally accredited voting machine testing lab made substantial changes to voting systems in over 40% of U.S. counties without public notice or independent oversight—just months before ballots were cast.
The allegations have prompted legal challenges and renewed scrutiny into how voting technology is certified and regulated.
🧾 Background: What Changed?
The central issue involves Pro V&V, a private, federally accredited testing laboratory responsible for certifying electronic voting machines in key states, including California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
The lab reportedly approved significant changes to ES&S voting machines, including:
- New ballot scanners
- Printer and firmware reconfigurations
- Upgrades to the Electionware results reporting software
Rather than treating these updates as major revisions, which would require public testing and federal review, Pro V&V labeled them as “de minimis” (minor), allowing the lab to skip transparency protocols.
🧑⚖️ Legal Fallout and Election Anomalies
The lack of disclosure has fueled litigation. In Rockland County, New York, a lawsuit filed by SMART Elections and other plaintiffs has gained judicial traction. In May 2025, Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled that the evidence was credible enough to proceed. The case, SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections, is set for a hearing in fall 2025.
Among the irregularities cited:
- Multiple voters signed affidavits stating their ballots did not match the official results.
- In several Democratic precincts, Kamala Harris’s name was reportedly missing from ballots, while other Democrats on the same ticket performed well.
- Donald Trump received 750,000 more votes than other Republican candidates on the same ballot, raising statistical red flags.
🔍 Oversight Gaps
Pro V&V is accredited by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), but oversight is limited. Once accredited, labs operate without:
- Public review boards
- Transparent logs
- Formal complaint mechanisms
Two of the four EAC commissioners were appointed by Trump. Critics argue that the lack of independent monitoring has made it nearly impossible for the public to hold voting labs accountable—even amid allegations of systemic tampering.
As of June 2025, Pro V&V remains accredited and uninvestigated.
📣 Implications and What’s Next
While Congress has already certified Donald Trump’s victory, the upcoming court case could have broad implications:
- Potential for state-level investigations
- Calls for federal oversight reform
- Renewed demands for election integrity legislation
Election experts warn that without transparency, the public’s faith in democracy is at risk. As watchdog group SMART Elections stated:
“If one small nonprofit uncovered this much, what else is hiding in our electoral systems?”
