INDEPENDENT CHECK OF PUBLIC ELECTION DATA

Check the Count

Many people believe the 2026 results don't add up. We took the certified vote counts that every state publishes and ran the tests that would catch a rigged count. This page shows what those tests found, how we ran them, and how you can check our work.

Certified data tested: every U.S. county, 2000 to 2024, and every Texas precinct, 2016 to 2024. 2026: waiting on certified county results, which most states finish by mid-December.

0Texas counties with more ballots than registered voters, 2016 to 2024
0 of 259state-by-year tests that found invented-looking vote counts, 2000 to 2024
88.6%of U.S. counties moved toward Republicans from 2020 to 2024
0counties flipped from Republican to Democratic in 2024
Section 2 / Findings

The claims, tested

“Counties swung in ways that make no sense.”

What we tested

How far each county's margin moved between elections, compared with what its demographics, size and previous result predict.

What we found

In Texas, demographics and the previous result explain 60 to 73% of each county's presidential swing. The counties that moved furthest beyond prediction (Maverick, Starr and Webb, where 84 to 92% of registered voters have a Spanish surname) moved toward Republicans in 2020 and 2024. Nationwide, 250 county results sit far from their state's pattern across six elections. The furthest in 2024 include heavily Hispanic places such as Imperial County, California, El Paso, Texas, and the Bronx and Queens in New York, a Navajo Nation county in Utah, and two Virginia college towns.

Mostly explained

“Turnout was impossible.”

What we tested

Ballots cast against registered voters in every Texas county and precinct, and sudden turnout jumps.

What we found

No Texas county had more ballots than registered voters in any year from 2016 to 2024. In 2024, 11 small precincts did, each by a single ballot, most likely because the registration count is a snapshot taken before Election Day. In the national file, no county's candidate votes add up to more than its own reported total.

No impossible counts

“Machines flipped votes.”

What we tested

Whether the top race moved out of step with the rest of the same ballot, whether any race got more votes than ballots, and whether the last digits of vote counts look like real counts or invented ones.

What we found

Real counts end in each digit about equally often; invented numbers usually don't. The last digits of the 2024 Texas precinct counts for president and U.S. Senate, and of the county counts in the 37 states large enough to test, 2000 to 2024, look like real counts: 0 of 259 state-by-year tests failed, and all 7 national tests passed. In Texas, the top race in no county got more votes than ballots, in any year from 2016 to 2024.

No sign found

“Late counts shifted the result.”

What we tested

How differently mail ballots and Election Day votes lean, in the states that report them separately.

What we found

Mail ballots leaned more Democratic than Election Day votes in 707 of 708 counties in 9 states in 2020. When mail is counted last, the lead moves toward Democrats late in the night, county after county, for that reason. A full test needs election-night reporting batches, which we are collecting.

Explained in part

Section 3 / Waves

Every election is a wave

When the national mood shifts, almost every county moves the same way. It happened toward Democrats in 2008 and toward Republicans in 2012, 2016 and 2024. In 2024, 88.6% of counties moved toward Republicans and not one county flipped to the Democrat. A one-sided sweep is what a wave looks like. Tampering would look different: a shift packed into certain counties, one brand of voting machine, or certain batches of ballots, that demographics and history can't explain.

Share of U.S. counties moving toward each party, by election pairDiverging bars: share of counties whose two-party margin moved toward Democrats on the left and toward Republicans on the right, for each pair of presidential elections from 2000 to 2004 through 2020 to 2024.← Toward DemocratsToward Republicans →025%25%50%50%75%75%100%100%2000 → 20042000 to 2004: 25.1% of counties moved toward Democrats2000 to 2004: 74.9% of counties moved toward Republicans25.1%74.9%Flips: 66 to D · 155 to R2004 → 20082004 to 2008: 78.0% of counties moved toward Democrats2004 to 2008: 22.0% of counties moved toward Republicans78.0%22.0%Flips: 333 to D · 43 to R2008 → 20122008 to 2012: 15.9% of counties moved toward Democrats2008 to 2012: 84.1% of counties moved toward Republicans15.9%84.1%Flips: 15 to D · 194 to R2012 → 20162012 to 2016: 11.2% of counties moved toward Democrats2012 to 2016: 88.8% of counties moved toward Republicans11.2%88.8%Flips: 17 to D · 223 to R2016 → 20202016 to 2020: 61.5% of counties moved toward Democrats2016 to 2020: 38.5% of counties moved toward Republicans61.5%38.5%Flips: 63 to D · 15 to R2020 → 20242020 to 2024: 11.4% of counties moved toward Democrats2020 to 2024: 88.6% of counties moved toward Republicans11.4%88.6%Flips: 0 to D · 86 to R
Share of U.S. counties whose two-party margin moved toward each party. Alaska is left out because it reports by district, and its districts were redrawn. Source: MIT Election Data + Science Lab county returns.
Show the numbers
PairCounties pairedMoved toward RMoved toward DFlips to DFlips to RVote-weighted mean swing
2000 to 20043,11274.9%25.1%661552.6 pp
2004 to 20083,11422.0%78.0%33343-10.0 pp
2008 to 20123,11484.1%15.9%151943.2 pp
2012 to 20163,11288.8%11.2%172231.7 pp
2016 to 20203,11338.5%61.5%6315-2.4 pp
2020 to 20243,11188.6%11.4%0864.8 pp

2020 to 2024: every state moved the same way

AKn/a
ME88
VT86
NH100
WA62
ID86
MT91
ND85
MN97
IL92
WI94
MI90
NY95
RI100
MA100
OR72
NV82
WY61
SD86
IA98
IN87
OH97
PA76
NJ100
CT100
CA98
UT31
CO55
NE75
MO93
KY100
WV98
VA90
MD96
DE67
AZ100
NM91
KS73
AR97
TN100
NC81
SC100
DC100
OK68
LA95
MS99
AL99
GA82
HI100
TX92
FL100
  • Under 60%
  • 60 to 80%
  • 80 to 95%
  • 95% or more
  • n/a (not compared)
Share of each state's counties that moved toward Republicans. In all 49 states and D.C. that were compared (Alaska is left out), the statewide margin moved toward Republicans too.
Section 4 / Mail ballots

Mail ballots lean Democratic almost everywhere

In the 9 states that report results by type of vote, mail and absentee ballots leaned more Democratic than Election Day votes in 707 of 708 counties in 2020. The single exception was Chicot County, Arkansas. This is why leads can move late on election night in states that count mail last.

Republican share of the two-party vote by type of vote, 2020Dot plot with one row per state: Republican share of the two-party vote for mail and absentee ballots, early in-person votes where reported, and Election Day votes.Republican share of the two-party vote0%25%50%75%100%Arkansas (75 counties)Arkansas: mail 37.4% R, Election Day 72.6% R, early in person 65.4% RArkansas: mail 37.4% R, Election Day 72.6% R, early in person 65.4% RArkansas: mail 37.4% R, Election Day 72.6% R, early in person 65.4% RGeorgia (158 counties)Georgia: mail 34.7% R, Election Day 61.5% R, early in person 53.2% RGeorgia: mail 34.7% R, Election Day 61.5% R, early in person 53.2% RGeorgia: mail 34.7% R, Election Day 61.5% R, early in person 53.2% RIowa (99 counties)Iowa: mail 41.9% R, Election Day 72.1% RIowa: mail 41.9% R, Election Day 72.1% RMaryland (24 counties)Maryland: mail 16.9% R, Election Day 59.3% R, early in person 47.2% RMaryland: mail 16.9% R, Election Day 59.3% R, early in person 47.2% RMaryland: mail 16.9% R, Election Day 59.3% R, early in person 47.2% RNorth Carolina (100 counties)North Carolina: mail 28.4% R, Election Day 66.5% R, early in person 52.9% RNorth Carolina: mail 28.4% R, Election Day 66.5% R, early in person 52.9% RNorth Carolina: mail 28.4% R, Election Day 66.5% R, early in person 52.9% ROklahoma (73 counties)Oklahoma: mail 40.5% R, Election Day 73.7% R, early in person 66.0% ROklahoma: mail 40.5% R, Election Day 73.7% R, early in person 66.0% ROklahoma: mail 40.5% R, Election Day 73.7% R, early in person 66.0% RSouth Carolina (46 counties)South Carolina: mail 39.2% R, Election Day 68.0% R, early in person 48.2% RSouth Carolina: mail 39.2% R, Election Day 68.0% R, early in person 48.2% RSouth Carolina: mail 39.2% R, Election Day 68.0% R, early in person 48.2% RUtah (1 county)Utah: mail 42.3% R, Election Day 63.0% R, early in person 63.0% RUtah: mail 42.3% R, Election Day 63.0% R, early in person 63.0% RUtah: mail 42.3% R, Election Day 63.0% R, early in person 63.0% RVirginia (132 counties)Virginia: mail 34.2% R, Election Day 63.4% RVirginia: mail 34.2% R, Election Day 63.4% R
  • Mail and absentee
  • Election Day
  • Early in person, where reported
Republican share of the two-party vote by type of vote, 2020, in each state that reports it. Each line joins mail to Election Day. Source: MIT Election Data + Science Lab county returns.
Show the numbers
StateCountiesMail and absenteeEarly in personElection DayCounties where mail leaned more D
Arkansas7537.4%65.4%72.6%74 of 75
Georgia15834.7%53.2%61.5%158 of 158
Iowa9941.9%not reported72.1%99 of 99
Maryland2416.9%47.2%59.3%24 of 24
North Carolina10028.4%52.9%66.5%100 of 100
Oklahoma7340.5%66.0%73.7%73 of 73
South Carolina4639.2%48.2%68.0%46 of 46
Utah142.3%63.0%63.0%1 of 1
Virginia13234.2%not reported63.4%132 of 132
Section 5 / Texas

Texas up close

Texas publishes results for every precinct, along with registered voters, ballots cast and the share of voters with a Spanish surname. That lets us run tighter tests than anywhere else.

Registered voters and ballots, Texas general elections

YearRegisteredBallots castTurnoutCounties over 100%
201615,104,5949,044,89659.9%0
201815,789,0448,401,73053.2%0
202016,960,10711,355,33967.0%0
202217,713,3658,143,04746.0%0
202418,686,51711,460,79861.3%0

The more Hispanic a county, the further it moved toward Republicans in 2024

Swing toward Republicans by Spanish-surname share of voters, Texas, 2020 to 2024Horizontal bars of the vote-weighted change in two-party margin, 2020 to 2024, for five bands of Spanish-surname share of registered voters.0510152025Percentage points of two-party margin, 2020 to 20240–20% Spanish surname (134 counties)0–20% Spanish surname: 4.7 percentage points toward Republicans, 134 counties4.7 pp20–40% Spanish surname (46 counties)20–40% Spanish surname: 7.4 percentage points toward Republicans, 46 counties7.4 pp40–60% Spanish surname (29 counties)40–60% Spanish surname: 8.3 percentage points toward Republicans, 29 counties8.3 pp60–80% Spanish surname (11 counties)60–80% Spanish surname: 18.7 percentage points toward Republicans, 11 counties18.7 pp80–100% Spanish surname (11 counties)80–100% Spanish surname: 21.2 percentage points toward Republicans, 11 counties21.2 pp
Change in two-party margin, 2020 to 2024, weighted by votes. Source: Texas Legislative Council precinct data.
Show the numbers
Spanish-surname shareCountiesTwo-party votes (2024)Mean swingMedian swingVote-weighted swing
0–20%1346,127,3273.4 pp3.1 pp4.7 pp
20–40%463,286,6484.7 pp4.4 pp7.4 pp
40–60%291,034,1316.2 pp6.6 pp8.3 pp
60–80%11427,67312.2 pp13.1 pp18.7 pp
80–100%11338,30917.9 pp17.2 pp21.2 pp

Why one strange precinct isn't extra votes

Brazos County precinct 410027 shows 363 more votes for president than ballots cast. Across the whole county, Brazos has 122 fewer votes for president than ballots cast. The votes and the voter check-ins were credited to different precincts, so the precinct looks impossible while the county adds up. Nothing was added. The county's precinct canvass shows exactly how each ballot was assigned.

2026 Texas, preliminary
About 9.8 million Texans voted in 2026, the most in any Texas midterm since at least 1970, from a record 19.0 million registered voters (51.6% turnout). In 2022, 8,143,047 voted (46.0%). These 2026 figures are preliminary; certified county results are due after the state canvass, between 18 November and 3 December. Source: Texas Tribune, from Texas Secretary of State preliminary data.

Section 6 / 2026

2026: what we know and what we'll test

Democrats won about 254 House seats and 54 Senate seats, according to news-network projections. Counting is not finished, and no state has certified its county results yet.

U.S. House popular vote

YearStatusDemocraticRepublican
2022Final51,280,463 · 47.29% · 213 seats54,227,992 · 50.01% · 222 seats
2026preliminary64,014,623 · 55.8% · 254 seats preliminary48,995,107 · 42.7% · 163 seats preliminary
2026 totals are incomplete and the source's own figures disagree; we will replace them with certified totals. The same source's results table shows 48,264,805 Democratic and 40,889,441 Republican votes. Sources for the preliminary figures: NBC News House results, NBC News Senate results, Wikipedia.
  1. Uniform or concentrated? We will compare each county's 2026 result with 2022 and 2024. A wave moves nearly every county the same way, like 2008 and 2024. Tampering would show up as a shift concentrated in certain counties, machine brands or batches.
  2. Ballots against voters. Every counted ballot should match a voter recorded as having voted. Texas, Georgia and other states publish voter-history files a few weeks after an election, and we will compare them county by county.
  3. Did each state follow its own audit law? We will check whether each state ran the post-election audit its law requires, and published the result.
Section 7 / The law

What the law requires

Almost every state requires a check after the election, usually a hand count of paper ballots from a sample of precincts or machines, or a risk-limiting audit that keeps counting until the result is confirmed. The table lists each state's audit type and the law that sets it.

  • 7Risk-limiting
  • 37Traditional hand count
  • 3Procedural
  • 2None required
  • 2Other or unclear
StateAudit requiredTypeLaw
AlabamaYesTraditionalAl. Pub. Act 433
AlaskaYesTraditionalAlaska Stat. §15.15.420, .430, .440, .450; §15.10.170
ArizonaYesTraditionalAriz. Rev. Stat. §16-602
ArkansasYesTraditionalArk. Stat. Ann. § 7-4-121
CaliforniaYesTraditional (RLA option 2020-2023)Cal. Elec. Code §336.5; §15360; §15365 et seq.
ColoradoYesRisk-limitingColo. Rev. Stat. §1-7-515
ConnecticutYesTraditionalConn. Gen. Stat. §9-320f
DelawareYesTraditionalDel. Code Title 15, § 5012A
FloridaYesTraditionalFla. Stat. §101.591
GeorgiaYesRisk-limitingGa. Code §21-2-498
HawaiiYesTraditionalHawaii Rev. Stat. §16-42; Haw. Admin. Rules §3-172-102
IdahoYesTraditionalIdaho Code § 34-1203A
IllinoisYesTraditionalIll. Rev. Stat. ch. 10, §§ 5/24A-15, 5/24B-15, 5/24C-15
IndianaConditionalProcedural and/or traditional when triggered; RLA pilotInd. Code §3-11-13-38, 3-12-3.5-8, 3-12-13
IowaYesTraditionalIowa Code § 50.51
KansasYesTraditionalKan. Stat. Ann. § 25-3009
KentuckyYesTraditional (RLA pilot)Ky. Rev. Stat. §117.383; §117.305; §117.275(9)
LouisianaYes (once new voting system implemented)Traditional (pending implementation)La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:1353(C)(5) (HB 924, 2022)
MaineUnclear (source inconsistent)Risk-limiting pilotHP 1482 (2022)
MarylandYesRisk-limiting, plus local procedural auditMd. Election Law §11-309; Code of Md. Regs. §33.08.05.00 et seq.
MassachusettsYes (presidential elections only)TraditionalMass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 54, § 109A
MichiganYes (procedural)Procedural; traditional authorized not requiredMich. Comp. Laws § 168.31a
MinnesotaYesTraditionalMinn. Stat. §206.89
MississippiYesProceduralMiss. Code Ann. § 23-15-615 (HB 1310, 2023)
MissouriYesTraditional15 Mo. Code of State Regs. §30-10.090, §30-10.110
MontanaYesTraditionalMont. Code Ann. §§ 13-17-501 to 13-17-509
NebraskaNo (discretionary)None required (discretionary 2% sample)None listed
NevadaYesRisk-limitingNev. Rev. Stat. §§ 293.247, 293.394; Nev. Admin. Code 293.480, 293.485
New HampshireYesOther (random sample of 8 counting devices)N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 660:33-660:35 (SB 489, 2024)
New JerseyYesTraditional (RLA pilot)N.J. Stat. §19:61-9
New MexicoYesTraditional (tiered by margin)N.M. Stat. Ann. §1-14-13.2 et seq.; N.M. Admin. Code 1.10.23
New YorkYesTraditionalN.Y. Election Law § 9-211; 9 N.Y. Comp. Rules & Regs. 6210.18
North CarolinaYesTraditionalN.C. Gen. Stat. §163-182.1
North DakotaYesTraditionalN.D. Cent. Code 16.1-06-15
OhioYesTraditional (RLA optional)Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3505.331
OklahomaNo (authorized not required)None requiredOkla. Stat. tit. 26, § 3-130
OregonYesTraditional (tiered; RLA option)Or. Rev. Stat. §254.529, §254.535
PennsylvaniaYesTraditional (RLA pilot)Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. 25 §3031.17, §2650
Rhode IslandYesRisk-limitingR.I. Gen. Laws § 17-19-37.4
South CarolinaYesOther (machine audit-file comparison)None cited
South DakotaYesTraditionalS.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§ 12-17B-18, 12-17B-20, 12-17B-21 (SB 160, 2023)
TennesseeYesTraditionalTenn. Code Ann. § 2-20-103
TexasYesTraditional (RLA pilot)Tex. Election Code Ann. § 127.201
UtahYesTraditional, plus biennial procedural auditsUtah Code Ann. § 20A-3a-202(9); 2023 HB 269
VermontYesTraditionalVt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, §2493, §§2581-2588
VirginiaYesRisk-limitingVa. Code § 24.2-671.1
WashingtonYesTraditional (RLA option)Wash. Rev. Code §29A.60.185, §29A.60.170; Wash. Admin. Code 434-262-105
West VirginiaYesTraditionalW. Va. Code § 3-4A-28
WisconsinYesTraditionalWis. Stat. §7.08(6)
WyomingYesTraditionalWyo. Stat. §§ 22-11-104, 22-6-130
District of ColumbiaYesTraditionalD.C. Code Ann. §1-1001.09a

As summarized by the National Conference of State Legislatures, updated 24 September 2026. We are checking each row against the statute itself. NCSL: Post-election audits.

Section 8 / Method

How we test

  1. A flag is a question, not proof. Results are marked Review (unusual, worth asking about) or Strong (impossible on its face).
  2. Every flag lists the ordinary explanations to rule out and the official record that would settle it.
  3. We account for demographics, county size and the previous result before calling a change unexplained.
  4. We count against chance. With 3,100 counties, some will look extreme by luck alone.
  5. We use totals only: no individual voter records, and no names of election workers.
  6. Nothing is published automatically. A person checks every finding against official records first.
  7. Anyone can rerun the tests and get the same numbers.

Why we don't use Benford's law

Benford's law predicts how often numbers start with each digit. It went viral in 2020 as proof of tampering, but precinct sizes are limited, so honest vote counts don't follow it. Researchers use the last digit instead, which is what we test.

Section 9 / Sources

Sources and how to check our work

SHA-256 of each Texas file the tests ran on
YearFileSHA-256
20162016_General_Election_Returns.csv068af5c28cd62449a7ab9cc7f2bd5510b32668bb685c305d768e04137e7b6d0b
20162016_General_Election_VRTO.csv7638af53e0a6fff0e0ed64268aa5298fb38fa37072f65725ba9f49225720bec9
20182018_General_Election_Returns.csv046c7e74b21aa9f6bceb19700dae4e2bdfd9ec1dd00a84f0fa3e9f4c3f174ad5
20182018_General_Election_VRTO.csv578e3536c2376f2a4d2562c8c6ab7877f8c7554cdf84f60b72c8184cc496c425
20202020_General_Election_Returns.csv9db1e9ccabd6e744f374723464370bce92ef4ad1dc1c0c556c5daed7b6313585
20202020_General_Election_VRTO.csvb76ad3cdad1ddbd8830afe80e483121509eb2a6a4ac6d9ff86dcbe37ead00847
20222022_General_Election_Returns.csv4aead06e4140e0622490186b520dab0b4fa4cca25b895d289a65117cdea8b8ee
20222022_General_Election_VRTO.csvd09ba78a64a938c24cd277ad3049707ae9990ed1d6c923eba8effd17f2d803fc
20242024_General_Election_Returns.csv575746d36c66dfffc16162aaa3bc59ba5fc2286a246bf5943f8a6774ceb6bd72
20242024_General_Election_VRTO.csv3f05f34a9196ff03e5549a05a1a5cfa0c87a3d26e6703ee5bcc2562205500c2e
Rerun it
npm test
npm run check:tx
npm run check:us -- --tlc "data/raw/tlc/extracted"

Flags raised

ReportCheckWhat it looks atReviewStrong
Texasturnout-over-registrationBallots cast above registered voters110
Texasturnout-jumpUnusual change in county turnout rate80
Texasswing-unexplainedCounty margin swing not explained by demographics130
Texasballot-consistencyTop-race margin versus a down-ballot race on the same ballots330
Texasresidual-votesResidual votes in the top race570
Texaslast-digitLast-digit uniformity of precinct counts00
Texaslate-countLate counts shifting the result00
U.S.shift-uniformityHow uniform each historical county swing was00
U.S.swing-outlier-within-stateCounty margin swing unusual within its own state2500
U.S.vote-growth-outlierCounty growth in total presidential votes unusual within its state2630
U.S.last-digit-countyLast-digit uniformity of county vote counts00
U.S.vote-type-gapRepublican share by vote type: mail versus election day20
U.S.cross-sourceTexas county totals: MIT file versus TLC files40
U.S.data-integrityData integrity of the MIT county file100
Review flags are leads to look into. Most have ordinary local explanations, and each one lists them in the full report.