What analyses has the Election Truth Alliance published about the 2024 election, and how have independent election experts evaluated those analyses?
Executive summary
The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) has published a multi-state portfolio of forensic-style analyses of the 2024 U.S. election that highlights alleged “irregularities,” recommends full hand audits of paper ballots, and has been used to support legal action; the organization’s public reports focus especially on Michigan (Wayne County), Minnesota, North Carolina and contested swing-state tabulations [1] [2]. Independent evaluation of ETA’s work is not well documented in the provided reporting: ETA frames its methods as grounded in mainstream election-forensics scholarship and even invokes recognized figures in the field, but the sources here do not include systematic external peer review or published rebuttals from neutral election scientists [2] [1].
1. What the Election Truth Alliance published and where it focused
ETA’s 2024 U.S. Election Analysis page hosts state-level dossiers and source data that purport to document forensic data anomalies and “swing-state irregularities,” with explicit longform and shortform files for places such as Wayne County, Michigan; a Minnesota special report comparing hand counts vs. machine counts; and a North Carolina packet alleging statistical evidence of manipulation [1]. ETA’s public messaging frames these materials not merely as academic findings but as a call to action—urging transparent, statewide hand audits and pressing officials to re-examine vulnerabilities in certified voting systems [1] [2].
2. Core claims, methods and remedies ETA advances
Across its releases, ETA emphasizes three pillars: data-driven statistical forensics, discrepancies between machine and hand counts in sampled jurisdictions, and procedural lapses such as uncertified or newly recoded tabulators in many counties—claims the organization says were found in 93% of North Carolina counties and which it argues could be consequential for state outcomes [2]. ETA describes using multiple analytic techniques “grounded in the work of election forensics experts at home and abroad,” and it explicitly recommends full hand audits of paper voting records for contested states and counties as the corrective measure [2] [1].
3. Legal and advocacy steps emerging from the analyses
ETA has not limited itself to publishing reports: the organization has translated its findings into litigation and public campaigns, filing at least one lawsuit against Pennsylvania officials and publicly urging hand audits and local election scrutiny in North Carolina [2]. PR distribution of the North Carolina report frames the findings as of sufficient magnitude to “potentially change the outcome” of the presidential race in that state, a claim designed to raise the stakes for policymakers and media [2].
4. How independent experts have evaluated ETA’s work — limits of the available record
The sources provided do not contain independent, detailed assessments or peer reviews by neutral election scientists of ETA’s 2024 analyses, so definitive statements about expert consensus cannot be made from this reporting alone; ETA claims its methodologies are informed by recognized forensics work and mentions leading figures in the field, but the available material stops short of including formal endorsements or structured critiques from those experts [2] [1]. The lack of documented external validation in these sources is itself notable: forensic claims that could alter public confidence or outcomes typically require transparent methods, reproducible code, open data and independent replication—elements ETA asserts but which are not independently corroborated within the cited reporting [1] [2].
5. Context, alternative viewpoints and hidden incentives
ETA positions itself as a non-partisan nonprofit, yet the PR framing and litigation posture align with organizations that aim to push for post-election remedies; readers should weigh ERA’s policy prescriptions (full hand audits, litigation) against the costs and precedents of re-examining certified results, and consider the potential for partisan amplification of forensic-sounding claims [2]. ETA’s invocation of prominent forensics scholarship and named experts suggests an attempt to anchor its findings in academic legitimacy, but absent transparent, independently verified replications in the reporting provided, alternative interpretations—ranging from routine statistical noise to localized procedural errors—remain plausible [2] [1].
6. Bottom line and reporting gaps to watch
ETA has published detailed state-level analyses asserting serious problems in the 2024 vote count and has moved those claims into legal and public advocacy channels; however, the sources available here do not include comprehensive independent evaluations or peer-reviewed replication studies that would confirm or refute ETA’s central conclusions, leaving a substantive evidentiary gap that neutral election researchers or journalists should prioritize filling [2] [1].