Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does the Election Truth Alliance's 2024 election audit methodology compare to official audits?
Executive Summary
The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) uses publicly available state and local election data and multiple statistical techniques to identify what it calls “anomalies consistent with vote manipulation,” and it repeatedly urges hand counts and non-routine audits to investigate those anomalies [1] [2]. ETA’s claims have been bolstered by at least one academic forensic analyst who reported statistical irregularities in 2024 results, but ETA itself does not present evidence of an NSA-authorized forensic audit and acknowledges gaps in documentation for that claim [3] [2]. Below I extract ETA’s key claims, summarize corroborating and qualifying analyses, and compare those approaches to the limited description of official audit practices available in the provided material.
1. What ETA asserts and how it frames the evidence—patterns, not certainties
ETA frames its 2024 work as statistical pattern detection based on publicly available data, presenting results for multiple states and highlighting patterns it labels “red flags” or “consistent with manipulation” [1] [4]. ETA emphasizes use of multiple “evidence-based methodologies” and positions its findings as a basis for calling for further non-routine investigation rather than as definitive legal proof of fraud. The organization urges that states perform hand counts of paper records going forward to validate or refute those statistical signals, framing hand counts as the remedy to the anomalies it identifies [2] [1].
2. Independent academic corroboration cited by ETA and its scope
ETA cites work by a leading election-forensics expert who reported statistical evidence suggesting possible vote manipulation and provided numerical estimates of potentially affected votes in the Presidential race, placing a wide range on his estimate [3]. This external analysis is presented by ETA as corroboration of its statistical findings in particular states, notably Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The expert’s work is described in the sources as identifying “distortions” or anomalies in the Election Day returns, but the provided material shows the expert’s conclusions are statistical in nature and framed with uncertainty rather than as forensic proof of procedural breaches [3].
3. ETA’s methodological emphasis: public data and multiple techniques
ETA’s methodological description in the provided material repeatedly stresses reliance on publicly available state and local datasets and the application of multiple forensic/statistical techniques across jurisdictions [1] [5]. ETA positions its analyses as reproducible in principle because they use public inputs, and it argues that consistent signals across methods and states strengthen the inference of irregularities. The materials also show ETA distinguishing its analytic role from formal audits, recommending that government entities perform non-routine audits and hand counts to validate findings [2].
4. What ETA does not claim and the limits it acknowledges
ETA explicitly disclaims having documentation for certain more sensational claims, such as a National Security Agency-authorized forensic audit, stating it cannot verify that event due to lack of supporting documentation [2]. The sources make clear ETA does not present its work as an official, chain-of-custody forensic audit of ballots or voting machines. Instead, ETA frames its work as an independent analytical prompt for official entities to conduct formal investigations with procedural safeguards like hand counts [2].
5. How ETA’s proposed remedies differ from typical audit language in the material
ETA repeatedly calls for hand counts of paper voting records and non-routine, deeper audits where statistical anomalies appear [2] [1]. The provided materials contrast ETA’s advocacy for hand counts as the corrective action to confirm or refute statistical findings, but they do not supply a detailed description of how official post-election audits—such as routine risk-limiting audits or canvasses—were conducted in the same jurisdictions for 2024. As a result, the sources show ETA arguing for a more expansive manual verification than the routine procedures ETA recommends.
6. Breadth of state-specific claims and where ETA focuses attention
ETA has released reports and statements covering multiple states including North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, highlighting state-level irregularities and calling attention to Election Day result patterns [4] [1]. The material portrays ETA’s approach as multi-state and comparative, using cross-jurisdictional patterns to argue that findings in one state gain weight when mirrored elsewhere. The sources show the organization prioritizes areas where statistical techniques indicate concentrated anomalies to prompt targeted non-routine audits [1].
7. Tensions between statistical inference and procedural audit standards
ETA’s work, as presented, is statistical and publicly reproducible, but the sources highlight an important distinction: statistical indications of anomalies do not substitute for procedural, evidence-preserving audits with chain-of-custody and legal authority. ETA’s call for hand counts acknowledges that only physical ballot inspection by authorized officials following legal protocols can convert statistical suspicion into demonstrable, adjudicable findings [5] [2]. The material shows ETA is aware of that gap and uses its analyses to push for remedial official action.
8. Overall assessment from the provided sources and next-step recommendations
From the supplied documents, ETA offers a data-driven alarm bell based on public-data forensics and cites academic analyses that find statistical irregularities, while simultaneously not claiming to perform formal forensic audits or produce documentation for certain external claims like an NSA audit [3] [2]. The most salient gap in the provided material is a lack of direct, contemporaneous comparison to how official audits were actually conducted in each state for 2024; ETA’s core recommendation—state-led non-routine audits and hand counts—addresses that gap but also underscores that statistical signals require procedural follow-up to reach definitive conclusions [2] [1].