Special Edition (Part I): A Documentary Examination of Dominion, Smartmatic, and Voting Machine Allegations
The 2020 Election: A Documentary History - Claims, Evidence, Investigations, and Findings
At a Glance
Question: What does the documentary record establish about allegations involving Dominion Voting Systems, Smartmatic, and voting machine technology during the 2020 presidential election?
This Special Edition examines:
How U.S. voting systems are tested and certified
Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic - similarities and differences
The principal allegations made after the election
The evidence presented in support of those allegations
Official reviews by state and federal agencies
Technical analyses, audits, and recounts
Court proceedings and subsequent litigation
What the documentary record shows
What the documentary record does not establish
Selected Primary Sources
Introduction
Few subjects generated more controversy following the 2020 presidential election than allegations involving electronic voting systems. Claims that voting machines altered vote totals, deleted ballots, switched votes between candidates, or were manipulated by foreign actors spread rapidly through lawsuits, news conferences, legislative hearings, social media, and public debate.
Many of these allegations centered on two companies: Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. Although the companies were frequently mentioned together, they are separate organizations with different technologies, different histories, and different roles in U.S. elections.
Because these allegations became central to public discussion - and because they generated years of technical reviews, official investigations, court proceedings, and litigation - they warrant a more detailed examination than the chapter format allows.
As with every installment in this series, this Special Edition does not attempt to persuade readers toward a political conclusion. Instead, it follows the documentary record by asking four questions:
What claims were made?
What evidence was presented?
How were the claims investigated?
What do the available documents establish?
Understanding how voting systems are designed and administered does not, by itself, answer whether any particular allegation is true or false. It does, however, provide the technical and procedural context necessary to evaluate those allegations using documentary evidence rather than speculation.
Part I: Understanding U.S. Voting Systems
Before examining specific allegations, it is helpful to understand how voting systems are designed, tested, certified, and audited in the United States.
Unlike many countries that administer elections through a single national authority, U.S. elections are conducted primarily by state and local governments. States establish their own election laws, certify voting systems, and oversee election administration, while counties and municipalities are responsible for conducting elections.
The federal government plays a more limited role. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) develops voluntary voting system guidelines and accredits independent laboratories that test voting equipment. States decide whether to adopt those standards and often impose additional certification requirements of their own.
Modern voting systems typically include several safeguards intended to support accuracy and verification. These may include logic and accuracy testing before an election, bipartisan observation during election administration, voter-verifiable paper records, post-election audits, recount procedures, and public certification of results.
Most jurisdictions using Dominion equipment in 2020 relied on paper ballots that could be reviewed manually if questions arose about machine tabulation. That distinction became important because several closely contested states later conducted hand audits or recounts comparing paper ballots with machine-generated results.
Understanding these procedures does not answer whether any particular allegation is true or false. It does, however, provide important context for evaluating later claims about how voting systems could—or could not—have affected election outcomes.
Dominion Voting Systems
Dominion Voting Systems is a private election technology company headquartered in North America that provides voting equipment and election management systems to state and local election jurisdictions. Before the 2020 election, Dominion equipment had been certified for use in numerous states through state certification processes and testing conducted by federally accredited laboratories under the EAC’s voluntary certification program.
Dominion’s systems were used in a number of states during the 2020 election, although the specific equipment and configurations varied by jurisdiction. In many locations, voters marked paper ballots that were then scanned and tabulated electronically, creating a physical record that could later be audited or recounted.
Following the election, Dominion became the focus of numerous allegations concerning vote tabulation, software integrity, internet connectivity, and foreign influence. Those allegations varied considerably in scope and often evolved over time, making it important to examine each claim individually rather than treating them as a single assertion.
Smartmatic
Smartmatic is a separate election technology company that was also drawn into post-election controversy. Although its name frequently appeared alongside Dominion in public discussions, the two companies are distinct entities with different corporate histories and different roles in U.S. elections.
Smartmatic’s technology was used in only a limited number of U.S. jurisdictions during the 2020 election, most notably in Los Angeles County. Nevertheless, allegations concerning Smartmatic often overlapped with broader claims involving Dominion, leading many members of the public to mistakenly believe that the two companies were affiliated or that Smartmatic technology was widely used in battleground states.
Distinguishing between the companies is essential to understanding the documentary record, as investigations, court proceedings, and technical reviews often addressed different factual questions depending on which company’s systems were involved.
Selected Primary Sources
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0
https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelinesTesting & Certification Program
https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipmentVoting System Test Laboratories (VSTLs)
https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voting-system-test-laboratories-vstls
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
Protecting Election Infrastructure
https://www.cisa.gov/topics/election-securityRumor Control: Election Security
https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Voting and Election Security Resources
https://www.nist.gov/topics/voting
Dominion Voting Systems
Company Information
https://www.dominionvoting.com/
Smartmatic
Company Information
https://www.smartmatic.com/
Suggested Reading
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) - Election Technology
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaignsBrennan Center for Justice - Election Security Resources
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/secure-elections-voting
Coming in Part II
Part II examines the allegations themselves, including claims of vote switching, software manipulation, foreign influence, internet connectivity, the Antrim County incident, official investigations, post-election audits, court proceedings, and subsequent litigation involving Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic.
