Unreported Firmware Updates and Opaque Testing Procedures Trigger Widespread Concerns About Electoral Transparency
19 June 2025 — In a revelation shaking public trust in democratic processes, new investigations have uncovered unauthorized changes to voting machines used in a significant portion of U.S. counties during the 2024 presidential election. The modifications, carried out without public disclosure or independent review, have raised urgent questions about election security, oversight failures, and whether procedural gaps may have impacted the final outcome—especially the narrow defeat of Kamala Harris to Donald Trump.
Major Voting System Changes Approved Under the Radar
An in-depth report by Daily Boulder has ignited the latest firestorm in electoral oversight, revealing that Pro V&V, a federally certified voting system testing laboratory, authorized extensive updates to ES&S voting machines, which were deployed in over 40% of U.S. counties prior to the 2024 election.
The updates allegedly included:
- A full firmware revision
- Recalibrated ballot scanners and printers
- A new Electionware reporting interface
These significant alterations were surprisingly labeled “de minimis” by Pro V&V—typically a classification reserved for minor, non-substantive tweaks that bypass the need for public scrutiny or rigorous third-party testing.
Quiet Approval Sparks Alarm Among Watchdogs
Election integrity watchdog SMART Elections has contested the classification, asserting that the changes were far too extensive to qualify as trivial. According to the group, millions of voters used modified machines without ever being informed, and election officials were similarly left in the dark.
“Labeling such sweeping updates as ‘minor’ is not only inaccurate, it’s dangerous,” said SMART Elections co-founder Linda Justice. “These decisions were made behind closed doors, sidelining the very oversight mechanisms designed to ensure public confidence in elections.”
Allegations of Irregularities in New York Spark National Attention
The issue gained traction after reports of anomalies surfaced in Rockland County, New York, where voters described inconsistencies between their ballots and the final vote tallies.
Among the most vocal was Diane Sare, an independent Senate candidate, who said multiple precincts failed to reflect votes that supporters claim to have cast for her. “We had volunteers at polling places and overwhelming community support,” said Sare. “The official numbers just don’t add up.”
While these claims are still being investigated, they’ve catalyzed a national conversation about whether such discrepancies—when replicated at scale—could have influenced not only local outcomes but also statewide and federal races, including the presidency.
Statistical Anomalies Raise More Questions
Election analysts and data scientists have highlighted unusual voting patterns in Democratic-leaning regions. In some districts, Kamala Harris’s name was reportedly absent from parts of the ballot—particularly at the top, where presidential candidates are typically listed.
Further raising eyebrows were precincts where Harris received zero votes, even though Democratic down-ballot candidates won by comfortable margins in the same locations. These discrepancies have led experts to suspect potential issues in ballot design or machine configuration.
Conversely, Donald Trump’s vote totals in several counties far exceeded those of GOP Senate candidates—a deviation from normal voting trends where presidential and Senate tallies are closely aligned. In some jurisdictions, the margin was hundreds of thousands of votes.
“This is statistically abnormal,” said Dr. Ava Mendoza, a political scientist at Columbia University. “In battleground states especially, such anomalies warrant close examination.”
Spotlight on Pro V&V’s Oversight and Accountability
At the heart of the controversy is Pro V&V, a private lab responsible for certifying electronic voting systems. While accredited by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the lab reportedly operates with limited public accountability.
Following the Daily Boulder exposé, Pro V&V’s website went offline, removing key transparency resources and making it nearly impossible for media or citizens to access contact information or technical data. As of this writing, Pro V&V has issued no official statement regarding the report or the concerns raised.
Critics argue that the lab has become a gatekeeper without oversight, rubber-stamping modifications that should require external review. “Once a lab is accredited, there’s virtually no mechanism for public complaint, no external audits, and no revocation process—even in the face of credible allegations,” said election law expert Prof. Jeremy Lin of NYU.
Lawsuit Clears Legal Hurdle in New York State
The most immediate legal fallout is unfolding in New York, where a state judge has allowed a lawsuit filed by SMART Elections and other advocacy groups to proceed. The case—SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections—argues that voter disenfranchisement and systemic failure occurred due to non-transparent machine updates and ballot discrepancies.
While the lawsuit cannot overturn the 2024 presidential result, legal analysts believe it could set precedents in electoral technology governance and spark state or federal investigations.
“This case isn’t just about one county,” said attorney Michael Grant, who represents SMART Elections. “It’s about a systemic failure in how we manage and validate the tools of democracy.”
Federal Oversight Under Microscope: The Role of the EAC
The Election Assistance Commission, established to oversee federal voting guidelines and testing protocols, now finds itself facing serious credibility questions.
Currently composed of four members—including two Trump-era appointees—the EAC lacks real enforcement capabilities. Its internal structure means that disciplinary action against labs like Pro V&V requires a lengthy, bureaucratic process, with no role for the public or external reviewers.
Despite public outcry, as of June 2025, no formal investigation has been launched against Pro V&V by the EAC. Critics argue the commission has become a “rubber stamp agency”—granting lab accreditations and turning a blind eye to post-certification conduct.
“There’s no transparency. There are no audits. There is no accountability,” said Liz Werner, former commissioner at the EAC. “Until we fix that, our elections remain vulnerable—not just to fraud, but to incompetence and negligence.”
Experts Call for Immediate Electoral Reforms
Across the political spectrum, experts are calling for urgent reforms to the way electronic voting systems are managed in the U.S.
Recommended actions include:
- Establishing an independent audit board for voting machine labs
- Requiring full public disclosure of all software and hardware updates
- Implementing a mandatory retesting process for any system changes, regardless of severity classification
- Enabling public complaint mechanisms against testing labs
- Holding public hearings on future certification processes
“Democracy only works if people trust the process,” said former EAC chairwoman Cynthia Hall. “We need structural safeguards, not blind trust in private companies and unelected bureaucrats.”
Public Trust on the Line
While many Americans accept the certified results of the 2024 election, a growing segment of the population—particularly among Harris supporters—are expressing skepticism over how the election was conducted and counted.
Social media platforms have seen a surge in hashtags like #MachineGate, #BallotBlackout, and #FixOurVote, amplifying demands for reform and transparency.
A recent Pew Research Center poll found that only 47% of voters believe electronic voting systems are “very secure”, down from 65% before the 2024 election. Among younger voters aged 18–34, trust in voting infrastructure dropped below 40%.
Looking Ahead: Implications for 2026 and Beyond
With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon, state legislatures and federal agencies face mounting pressure to address the gaps exposed in 2024. If the current legal challenges gain traction—or result in enforced reforms—they may fundamentally reshape how America secures its elections in the digital age.
What remains clear is that secretive updates, opaque certification processes, and a lack of oversight have created fertile ground for doubt—regardless of political affiliation.
The challenge now is restoring faith in a system where every vote is counted accurately, and every voter is heard without interference or error.
Read more these latest AiTechtonic article: