Which witnesses or affidavits has the Election Truth Alliance presented to support its 2024 irregularity allegations?
Executive summary
The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) has circulated forensic-style analyses and launched litigation alleging 2024 vote irregularities, but the materials publicly referenced in the available reporting emphasize statistical reports, county data comparisons and audit toolkits rather than a clearly itemized set of sworn witness affidavits attached to their claims [1] [2]. ETA’s public communications and lawsuit filings describe statistical anomalies in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Clark County, Nevada, and call for hand audits and document reviews; the PR Newswire summary of their Pennsylvania lawsuit lists specific county issues but does not enumerate named, sworn witnesses in the excerpt available [2] [3].
1. What ETA says it has submitted: forensic analyses and county-specific findings
ETA’s public output centers on data-driven reports and election-forensics methods. Their Substack and website announce analyses of 2024 results and urge audits and legal remedies; they present statistical “red flags” and claim patterns resembling manipulation in places including North Carolina and Pennsylvania [1] [4]. The PR Newswire summary of ETA’s Pennsylvania lawsuit details alleged tabulation and certification failures in Cambria County and other counties and points to discrepancies such as mismatches between machine-reported totals and paper records, but that summary does not list a roster of witness affidavits [2].
2. Lawsuit materials described — procedural claims, not a witness roll call
The PR Newswire synopsis of ETA’s Pennsylvania filing frames the suit as seeking verification that paper ballots match machine totals and alleges anomalies in Allegheny, Cambria and Erie Counties; it also references a newly released North Carolina forensic report [2]. The press release cites specific statistical and procedural concerns (e.g., duplicated ballots and vote count discrepancies) but the publicly available excerpt does not provide the lawsuit’s full docket, exhibits, or any attached sworn affidavits by name [2]. Available sources do not mention the identities or texts of any sworn witnesses or affidavits appended to that filing.
3. ETA’s communications emphasize public reports and grassroots toolkits, not sworn testimony
ETA’s Substack newsletters and their Audit Request Toolkit promote data, templates for requesting hand audits, and ways for citizens to press officials to review ETA’s findings [1] [5]. Those materials are procedural and advocacy-oriented: the toolkit supplies templates for contacting officials and the Substack frames ETA’s work as independent data analysis rather than as a compilation of witness depositions [5] [1]. Available sources do not mention sworn affidavits provided by ETA to courts or election authorities in support of their core irregularity allegations.
4. Outside coverage and scrutiny — competing perspectives on ETA’s evidence
Other outlets and commentators characterize ETA’s approach as statistical and spreadsheet-driven rather than testimonial; The Atlantic described ETA as offering regression-analysis and spreadsheet claims that some critics found unconvincing [6]. That coverage implies a contrast between ETA’s forensic-style statistical claims and other movements that have relied on named insider witnesses. The Atlantic piece also highlights a separate allegation about an alleged NSA audit and a former CIA officer’s claim in a different newsletter, and it casts doubt on those claims while noting ETA’s data-focused tactics [6].
5. What is not shown in the available reporting — sworn affidavits and witness lists
The sources in this packet describe ETA’s reports, lawsuit goals, and advocacy materials but do not present or cite a public list of witness names, sworn affidavits, or deposition transcripts provided by ETA to substantiate their 2024 irregularity allegations [2] [1] [5]. If you are seeking the specific affidavits or witness statements ETA relied on in court filings, available sources do not mention them. To confirm whether such affidavits exist and what they contain, one would need the full court filings, exhibits, or ETA’s direct releases of sworn testimony — documents not included in the provided material [2].
6. How to verify further — where ETA’s claims would show supporting affidavits
To find named witness affidavits, examine the full complaint and docket in the Pennsylvania Western District court referenced by ETA’s press release and any attached exhibits, or request ETA’s case filings and evidence packages directly from their website or counsel [2]. ETA’s Substack and website may publish additional documents beyond the excerpts summarized here; the toolkit and newsletters are starting points but, per current reporting, do not substitute for sworn statements [1] [5].
Limitations: This analysis uses only the provided sources and therefore cannot confirm whether affidavits exist in filings or private submissions beyond what these sources report; the PR Newswire summary and ETA’s public posts emphasize statistical reports and advocacy rather than presenting a disclosed list of sworn witnesses [2] [1].