Fact check: How do the Election Truth Alliance's 2024 findings compare to previous election integrity reports?

1. How ETA Frames the Problem — “Machine vs. Hand” Discrepancies Demand a Hand Audit

ETA’s public statements and articles emphasize statistical differences between machine-count and hand-count results, labeling those differences “election integrity red flags” and urging full hand audits of paper records. ETA’s North Carolina analysis reports patterns consistent with manipulation in 93% of counties, explicitly calling for audits to verify whether machine tallies align with ballots ^[2]. ETA’s messaging centers on a forensic-style approach: identify statistical anomalies in aggregated vote totals, then use manual ballot comparison to test for systematic error or fraud. The group’s public materials present those anomalies as prima facie evidence warranting further investigation rather than final proof of criminal activity ^{[3] [2]}.

2. Independent Academic Corroboration — Mebane’s Forensic Findings in Pennsylvania

A prominent election-forensics expert, Dr. Walter Mebane, Jr., published an analysis in June 2025 identifying statistical signatures he interprets as evidence of vote manipulation in Pennsylvania, and produced an estimated range of possibly affected votes from 25,000 to 225,440 in the presidential race ^[1]. Mebane’s work is presented by supporters as independent corroboration of ETA’s broader claims, because both highlight statistical irregularities in electronic or machine-counted precincts. The Mebane analysis is framed as academic forensic work, but it remains a statistical interpretation of vote totals rather than a direct audit of paper ballots or chain-of-custody records ^[1].

3. State-Level Claims: North Carolina and Pennsylvania as Test Cases

ETA’s North Carolina report asserts widespread statistical evidence of manipulation and recommends a full hand audit of paper records, arguing that state-level anomalies could have affected the presidential outcome there ^[2]. In Pennsylvania, ETA’s concerns align with Mebane’s findings, which quantify a wide range of potentially impacted votes and single out geographic patterns that the analyst views as inconsistent with routine error ^[1]. Both ETA and Mebane emphasize statistical patterns rather than documented ballot-by-ballot discrepancies; their conclusions therefore depend on the validity of the forensic methods and the representativeness of the data sets analyzed ^{[2] [1]}.

4. Contrasts With Earlier Election-Integrity Reports — Different Questions, Different Methods

Earlier studies cited here tackle different questions: the Heartland Institute’s 2024 study examined the impact of expanded mail-in voting on the 2020 outcome and suggested that mail-in expansion could have altered that result — a claim that addresses voting policy effects rather than machine-count anomalies ^[4]. Other contemporaneous items in the record (legal briefs and media pieces) focus on procedural rulemaking and administrative challenges rather than forensic statistical claims ^{[5] [6] [7]}. Thus, ETA’s 2024/25 focus on machine vs. hand statistical signatures departs methodologically from reports primarily about mail-in voting or administrative rule processes ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Assessing Evidentiary Strength — Statistics, Replication, and the Need for Audits

The work cited combines statistical forensic interpretations (ETA reports and Mebane’s analysis) with policy-oriented studies that do not directly engage ETA’s methods (Heartland). Statistical anomalies can indicate irregularities but do not establish causation without ballot-level evidence. ETA and Mebane both call for hand audits and replication: ETA explicitly requests audits of paper ballots in jurisdictions flagged as anomalous, while Mebane’s estimates illustrate the scale of potential impact if statistical signals are borne out by physical evidence ^{[2] [1]}. The evidentiary gap is the absence, in these sources, of completed hand-count audits that confirm or refute the statistical claims ^{[3] [1]}.

6. Who’s Making the Claims — Actors and Potential Agendas to Note

ETA is an advocacy organization that promotes election-integrity investigations; the Heartland Institute is a conservative policy think tank; Dr. Mebane is an academic election-forensics expert whose work is cited as independent ^{[3] [4] [1]}. Each actor’s institutional posture matters: ETA’s calls for audits align with advocacy goals to produce ballot-level verification, Heartland’s study advances a policy argument about mail-in voting’s effects, and Mebane’s academic standing lends forensic credibility to statistical claims. Users should note that these sources are not uniform in method or purpose, and that corroboration across independent methods (statistical, forensic, and physical audit) is central to resolving contested findings ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

7. What’s Missing — Audit Results, Chain of Custody, and Cross-Validation

None of the provided materials cite completed, jurisdiction-wide hand audits that directly confirm or refute ETA’s statistical flags; the Mebane analysis remains a statistical estimate and Heartland’s 2024 work addresses a different question ^{[1] [4]}. Also missing are chain-of-custody records, adjudicated forensic laboratory reports, or multi-party replications of the statistical models presented. The absence of physical ballot comparisons and court-validated findings means that the claims remain statistically suggestive rather than legally conclusive, highlighting the need for empirically grounded audits and multi-method verification ^{[1] [2]}.

8. Bottom Line and Next Steps Documented in the Record

The available record through late 2025 shows ETA advancing statistical evidence of machine-count anomalies and urging hand audits; an academic forensic analysis by Mebane provides partial corroboration in Pennsylvania with a quantified estimate of possibly affected votes ^{[3] [1]}. The materials also include other election-integrity discussions that address mail-in voting and administrative rule disputes, which are related contextually but not direct validations of ETA’s 2024 claims ^{[4] [5]}. To move from statistical indication to definitive resolution, the documented next steps in these sources are reproducible hand audits, transparent chain-of-custody documentation, and independent replication of forensic models (p