What evidence has the Election Truth Alliance published to support its 2024 fraud claims?
Executive summary
The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) has published statistical reports and county-specific analyses claiming anomalies in 2024 results — notably a Clark County, Nevada cast-vote-record (CVR) analysis and multiple Pennsylvania county reports — and has commissioned or promoted work by election-forensics expert Walter Mebane (e.g., an “eforensics” analysis) to support its claims [1] [2] [3]. ETA has also initiated legal action seeking hand-count audits and released press materials asserting their findings [3] [1].
1. What ETA says it released: county reports, CVR work and expert analyses
ETA’s public materials highlight independent investigations of ballot-level CVR data for Clark County, Nevada, where ETA analysts reported patterns “consistent with election fraud” and alleged an apparent vote-flipping pattern in early-vote data that they say shifted vote shares after roughly 400 ballots were processed [1]. ETA also circulated reports comparing votes per candidate with registered-voter turnout in Pennsylvania counties (Allegheny, Cambria, Erie) and broader state-level statistical results it characterizes as matching manipulation signatures seen in other disputed elections [3].
2. Use of a named expert: Walter Mebane’s eforensics work
ETA engaged or promoted work by Dr. Walter R. Mebane Jr., a University of Michigan political-science professor known for statistical forensics. ETA published or linked an “eforensics” working paper by Mebane analyzing Pennsylvania’s 2024 presidential results and shorter “three counties” analyses of Philadelphia, Allegheny and Erie [2]. ETA describes Mebane’s methods as a central piece of their evidentiary portfolio [2].
3. Public claims vs. available documentation
ETA’s press releases and reporting pieces state specific findings — e.g., “vote-flipping hack” language for Clark County and “statistical evidence of widespread vote manipulation” in North Carolina and Pennsylvania (as cited in their filings and releases) — and say they are pursuing audits and litigation based on these analyses [1] [3]. The materials in the sources show ETA framing numerical irregularities as suspicious and tying them to forensic patterns from other contested elections [3] [1].
4. Legal and public-action follow‑through
ETA moved from analysis to action: one PR notice documents a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania seeking hand-count audits of 2024 ballots, citing their forensic work as the rationale [3]. Their public statements and press releases emphasize independent audits and validation as their next steps [1] [3].
5. Independent reporting and commentary about ETA’s claims
Media and commentators have summarized ETA’s claims and methods: an EIN/presswire release and coverage repeated the CVR-based allegations in Clark County [1]. A blog and commentary items note ETA’s engagement of Mebane and quotations of his working papers [2]. Other outlets and analysts have summarized ETA’s comparisons of U.S. vote patterns to episodes in Russia, Bolivia or Georgia, which ETA uses as analogies for alleged manipulation [4] [3].
6. Limitations, unresolved questions and what the sources do not show
Available sources document ETA’s analyses, press releases and legal filings but do not provide full, independently peer‑reviewed datasets or step‑by‑step reproducible code in the materials cited here; public reporting notes working papers and summaries rather than final, published forensic papers [2] [1]. The provided sources do not mention independent verification by state election officials or third‑party forensic teams disproving or confirming ETA’s specific claims — available sources do not mention state responses to the Clark County CVR allegation in the gathered material [1] [3].
7. Competing perspectives and how ETA frames its evidence
ETA presents statistical anomalies and expert eforensics as proof of manipulation and calls for hand counts and audits [3] [1]. Critics summarized in commentary challenge whether the observed CVR patterns necessarily indicate fraud versus data quirks or legitimate tabulation processes; however, the specific rebuttals or technical counter‑analyses are not found in the current set of sources — available sources do not mention detailed technical refutations [1] [4].
8. What to look for next (journalistic checklist)
Verify whether ETA publishes raw CVR files, reproducible code, and peer review of Mebane’s working paper; track official county and state responses to ETA’s Clark County and Pennsylvania allegations; examine court filings and expert testimony in the Pennsylvania litigation for evidentiary detail [3] [2] [1]. The sources show ETA has produced reports, engaged an established forensic expert, and filed legal actions — but they do not, in the provided material, show an independently confirmed overturning of any certified results [3] [2] [1].