In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, a private lab quietly performed sweeping changes to voting machines used in more than 40% of U.S. counties. No one told the public. No one reviewed the updates. No one verified the results. But the machines were altered —and now, serious questions are being raised about whether those changes may have affected the outcome of the election. Some are even asking whether Kamala Harris was the one who actually won.
In the words of watchdog group SMART Elections: “This wasn’t just a glitch in some sleepy county. It was a stress test of our entire system.”
Here’s what happened:
The Quiet Move
In 2024, a federally accredited lab named Pro V&V conducted a wave of hardware and software changes to ES&S voting machines. These were major changes—new ballot scanners, printer adjustments, updated firmware, and a new Electionware reporting system. But they were passed off as “de minimis” tweaks, a label meant for minor changes that don’t require full public review or testing.
However, as noted by Dissent in Bloom substack, the changes were anything but minor.
SMART Elections immediately flagged the move. But by then, it was too late. The machines had already been used in the election. And Pro V&V? The lab responsible for certifying them? It all but disappeared. Their once-public website became a hollow page. No logs. No documentation. Just a phone number and a generic email address.
This is the lab that signs off on voting systems in Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, California—and countless other places. And when people started asking questions, they vanished.
Something Was Off With the Votes
In Rockland County, New York, voters noticed their ballots didn’t seem to count. People swore under oath that they voted for Senate candidate Diane Sare. But in district after district, the machines didn’t reflect it. In one case, nine voters said they picked her. Only five votes showed up. In another, five claimed to vote for her—only three were recorded.
It wasn’t just third-party candidates. Kamala Harris’s name was missing entirely from the top of the ballot in several heavily Democratic districts. In areas that overwhelmingly backed Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, somehow, Harris got zero votes. Zero.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump received 750,000 more votes than Republican Senate candidates in those same districts. That’s not just voter preference. That’s a statistical impossibility.
As Dissent in Bloom reported: “That’s not split-ticket voting. That’s a mathematical anomaly.”
The Man Behind the Curtain
Pro V&V’s director is a man named Jack Cobb. You’ve never heard of him. He’s never held office. Never testified before Congress. Yet every major voting machine must pass through his lab before it reaches a ballot box. He answers to no one but his clients.
And there is no real system to remove him.
Thanks to the Help America Vote Act, labs like Pro V&V are accredited by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). But once a lab is approved, it stays in power—with no system for the public to challenge it, no hotline, no audits, and no independent oversight.
In fact, two of the four EAC commissioners—Benjamin Hovland and Donald Palmer—were appointed by Donald Trump during his first presidency.
Even if Pro V&V had committed fraud, the federal process to revoke accreditation is slow, vague, and entirely internal. No public hearings. No outside review. Just paper trails and bureaucratic stalling.
As of June 2025, Pro V&V remains accredited. Untouched. Uninvestigated. Untouchable.
So Did Kamala Harris Actually Win?
Longtime pastor and political writer John Pavlovitz asked the question out loud: “Kamala Harris May Have Won.”
He wasn’t the only one wondering. In the fall of 2024, Harris drew overflow crowds to nearly every campaign stop. Her rallies were electric. Her debate performance crushed Trump so badly he skipped the second. Meanwhile, Trump limped along, drawing half-full rooms, recycling grievances and conspiracies.
Democrats saw record turnout in early voting. Polls showed Harris leading or competitive in nearly every swing state. The path to 270 electoral votes was wide for her. Trump’s? Almost impossible.
And yet, he won.
Pavlovitz pointed to a quote from Elon Musk that may say more than it seems: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election.”
Was it just arrogance? Or was it a veiled confession?
Back in June 2024, Musk tweeted: “Anything can be hacked.” He had the means. He had the motive. He had the tools. And he threw his weight behind Trump at the exact moment voting machines were being quietly altered—with no oversight, no transparency, and no paper trail.
Moreover, Trump openly admitted that Musk had an advanced knowledge of the voting machines used in Pennsylvania—a decisive swing state central to Trump’s path to victory in November.
“He knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers,” Trump told the crowd. “And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.”
Watch the clip below:
What Happens Now?
On May 22, 2025, Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled that the allegations in the SMART Elections lawsuit were serious enough to move forward. The case—SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections—goes to hearing this fall.
It won’t change the 2024 outcome. Congress already certified it. Power has shifted. But the lawsuit could set off something bigger: state probes, decertifications, even criminal investigations.
Because this isn’t about glitches anymore. This is about a national election that may have been silently rewritten behind closed doors—by a private company, a vanishing lab, and a system with no accountability.
As Dissent in Bloom put it: “If one underfunded watchdog group can dig up this much from a quiet New York suburb, what else is rotting in the shadows of this country’s ballots?”
We may never get a full answer. But one thing is now certain: The voting machines were changed. No one was told. And Kamala Harris may have actually won.
