Which organizations collaborated with Election Truth Alliance on the 2024 Election Series and what did their joint reports claim?
Executive summary
The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) collaborated publicly with Grassroots Speak and an allied campaign called It’s Up to Us, led in reporting by Alison Greene, on a set of investigations labeled The 2024 Election Series (ETA says the joint findings were to be published there) [1]. Their joint and affiliated reports claim precinct-level statistical patterns and database anomalies that they say are “systematic” and “statistically significant,” presenting those patterns as evidence raising concerns about possible vote manipulation in multiple 2024 battleground counties [1] [2].
1. Who joined ETA on the 2024 Election Series
ETA’s own account describes being approached by Alison Greene of Grassroots Speak and her It’s Up to Us campaign while ETA was investigating Miami‑Dade and Palm Beach; that outreach led to “joint on the ground investigations” whose findings were to be published as The 2024 Election Series produced by Grassroots Speak and It’s Up to Us [1]. ETA’s public pages and substack posts frame those groups as colaboradores in at least the Florida-focused work, and they name the individuals and campaigns involved in coordinating field-level follow up [1]. The search results available do not provide documentation of broader institutional partnerships beyond those named actors; a separate entity called “ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH” appears in campaign‑finance search results but the available snippet does not establish it as a collaborator with ETA on the 2024 Series [3].
2. What the joint reports claim about results and patterns
Across the pieces cited, the joint reporting and affiliated ETA analyses assert that precinct‑level turnout correlates with vote shares in ways they describe as abnormal and favorable to Donald Trump, and that those correlations are “systematic and statistically significant” in counties including Miami‑Dade, Palm Beach and St. Lucie [1]. ETA’s substack work extends similar language to other states—saying their statistical analyses of Nevada, Pennsylvania and Iowa “uncovered concerns regarding potential vote manipulation” and highlighting counties where turnout and vote shares departed from pre‑election expectations or standard patterns [2]. The Florida‑focused preliminary report explicitly flags database errors and voter‑registration issues in St. Lucie that the Grassroots Speak/It’s Up to Us investigator, Alison Greene, flagged as mirroring ETA’s concerns [1].
3. How those claims are framed and the methods they cite
ETA presents its work as statistical and precinct‑level, inviting questions about methodology and positioning itself as a volunteer‑led nonprofit focused on free and fair elections; their reporting repeatedly frames findings as concerns rather than definitive proof of fraud and says readers may question their methodology [2]. The preliminary Florida account emphasizes on‑the‑ground follow up after database anomalies were flagged, implying a combination of quantitative patterns and field verification [1]. The available excerpts do not provide full methodological appendices in the materials supplied here, so independent assessment of their statistical techniques, controls for confounders, and robustness checks cannot be confirmed from the provided sources [2].
4. Competing interpretations, limitations, and transparency issues
ETA’s language—“concerns” and invitations to probe methodology—acknowledges inferential limits, and the materials show the investigators seeking partnerships to verify anomalies on the ground [2] [1]. However, the claims that patterns could indicate vote manipulation are strong in tone and, as presented in the excerpts, mix statistical correlation with implication of causation without the detailed methodological documentation needed to evaluate alternative explanations such as demographic shifts, turnout mobilization, or data recording errors unrelated to intentional manipulation [2]. The public record in the provided sources does not include peer review, replication by disinterested academic teams, or official election‑administration confirmations of the flagged database errors, so independent verification remains outstanding [2] [1].
5. What the existing reporting does and does not establish
The sources clearly establish that ETA worked with Grassroots Speak and the It’s Up to Us campaign (via Alison Greene) on joint investigations framed as The 2024 Election Series and that those reports claim systematic precinct‑level correlations and database anomalies that raise suspicions of possible vote manipulation in specified counties [1] [2]. What the provided reporting does not establish is definitive proof that manipulation occurred, nor does it supply the full datasets, statistical code, or independent corroboration needed to adjudicate the causal claim; the available public excerpts stop short of such confirmatory evidence [2].