Kamala Harris won the U.S. elections: Bombshell report claims voting machines were tampered with before 2024: A new report is stirring fresh debate about the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, claiming that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were even cast. The bombshell allegation raises a serious question: Did Kamala Harris actually win the 2024 election?

According to the investigative piece from Daily Boulder, a private lab quietly implemented sweeping changes to voting machines used in over 40% of U.S. counties ahead of the 2024 race. Those changes, the report claims, were made with no public notice, no formal testing, and no third-party oversight.

What changes were made to voting machines before the 2024 election?

The report centers around Pro V&V, a federally accredited lab responsible for certifying voting machines in key states like Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, and California. In early 2024, the lab reportedly approved updates to ES&S voting systems, which included:

• New ballot scanners
  
  
• Printer reconfigurations
  
  
• Firmware upgrades
  
  
• A new Electionware reporting system
  
  

Instead of labeling these as major changes, Pro V&V classified them as “de minimis,” a term typically reserved for insignificant tweaks. This classification allowed them to bypass public scrutiny and avoid triggering full-scale testing or certification processes.

But watchdog group SMART Elections wasn’t convinced. In their words:

“This wasn’t just a glitch in some sleepy county. It was a stress test of our entire system.”

Soon after the machines went live, complaints began to surface.

Were votes miscounted or ignored in key counties?

In Rockland County, New York, several voters testified under oath that their ballots didn’t match the official results. Senate candidate Diane Sare reportedly lost votes in precinct after precinct:

• In one district, 9 voters claimed they voted for Sare, but only 5 votes were recorded.
  
  
• In another, 5 voters swore they supported her, but only 3 votes appeared.
  
  

It wasn’t just third-party candidates who saw odd results.

In multiple Democratic-leaning areas, Kamala Harris’s name was reportedly missing from the top of the ballot entirely. Voters said they couldn’t even find her name to select. These same areas had high support for Democrats like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, yet Harris received zero votes—a statistical anomaly that defies traditional voting patterns.

Even more shocking: Donald Trump received 750,000 more votes than Republican Senate candidates in these districts. As reported by Dissent in Bloom, a political Substack,

“That’s not split-ticket voting. That’s a mathematical anomaly.”

Who is behind Pro V&V, and why is there no oversight?

At the center of the controversy is Jack Cobb, the director of Pro V&V. While he doesn’t appear in the headlines, his lab certifies the machines that millions of Americans use to vote. According to the report, once the controversy began to gain traction, Pro V&V’s website went dark, leaving only a phone number and a generic email address. No public logs. No documentation. No comment.

Pro V&V is certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). However, once accredited, labs like Pro V&V face no real public oversight. There is no hotline, no review board, and no formal process for the public to challenge or remove them.

The EAC itself has four commissioners, two of whom—Benjamin Hovland and Donald Palmer—were appointed by Donald Trump during his first presidency. Even if wrongdoing were discovered, the process to revoke a lab’s accreditation is slow, murky, and entirely internal. There are no public hearings and no outside investigations.

As of June 2025, Pro V&V remains fully accredited and uninvestigated.

Could Kamala Harris have actually won the election?

The question is no longer whispered in political corners—it’s being asked outright. In May 2025, Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled that allegations raised by SMART Elections were credible enough to move forward. The case, SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections, is scheduled for hearing this fall.

While the lawsuit won’t change the outcome of the election—Congress already certified Trump’s victory—it could set off wider probes, from state investigations to federal criminal inquiries.

Political writer John Pavlovitz openly questioned the result, writing:

“Kamala Harris may have won.”

During the campaign, Harris reportedly drew massive crowds, high early voting numbers, and strong poll performances in swing states. Her debate showing against Trump was widely viewed as dominant—Trump even skipped the second debate.

And yet, despite that momentum, Trump won.

Adding fuel to the fire, Elon Musk, who vocally supported Trump, posted cryptic tweets during the 2024 cycle, including:

“Anything can be hacked.”
Later, Musk stated:
“Without me, Trump would have lost the election.”

Trump himself added to the speculation, telling supporters:

“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.”

The upcoming court case could become a pivotal moment in election security history. The lawsuit claims that a private company quietly changed voting machines in over 40% of U.S. counties—and no one knew until after the votes were counted.

The implications are serious:

• Could future elections be altered without oversight?
  
  
• Should the EAC change how it certifies and monitors voting labs?
  
  
• Is the public being kept in the dark about the technology behind their vote?
  
  

SMART Elections warns this isn’t just about one race:

“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?”