Fact check: Which states did the Election Truth Alliance focus on for their 2024 election irregularities investigation?

1. Why the State List Doesn’t Line Up — Conflicting Public Accounts Spark Confusion

Different documents present competing claims about which states ETA examined, producing confusion among observers. An early December 2024-style synthesis attributes ETA work to battleground states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, framing those as common targets of election-related scrutiny ^[2]. By contrast, a January 2025 account highlights Nevada, specifically Clark County, as a locus of ETA-identified anomalies in Early Voting data ^[1]. Later ETA-facing materials from September 2025 omit state names entirely and instead promote procedural remedies, signaling either a strategic pivot or inconsistent disclosure about field activities ^[3]. Each claim reflects different narratives and timeframes, so no single list can be accepted without corroboration.

2. What ETA’s Own Messaging Emphasized — Procedures Over Geography

ETA’s subsequently published materials foreground process reforms—not a roster of contested states—calling for full hand counts of paper voting records and guidance on raising integrity concerns. This messaging appears in September 2025 communications that do not identify specific state investigations, suggesting ETA positioned itself as advocating systemic remedies rather than publicizing targeted state probes ^[3]. The absence of explicit state mentions in ETA-authored texts leaves outside attributions (naming Nevada or multiple battlegrounds) reliant on third-party reporting or selective excerpts, which complicates efforts to map ETA’s operational footprint with confidence.

3. Nevada/Clark County: A Specific Claim That Stands Out

One source directly links ETA’s inquiry to Nevada, particularly Clark County, reporting that the group identified voting-pattern anomalies in Early Voting results. That January 2025 account frames Nevada as a focal point of fieldwork or analytic scrutiny ^[1]. The claim is precise in geography but isolated in the dataset; it’s not corroborated by ETA’s later public procedural guidance and is not echoed by the November 2024 roundups that emphasize different states. Given this isolation, the Nevada claim is plausible but not conclusively corroborated by the broader document set provided.

4. Broader Battleground Claims: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan

Another account, dated November 26, 2024, asserts ETA’s attention was on classic battlegrounds—Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan—aligning ETA with other groups that scrutinized those states in 2024 ^[2]. That list mirrors where election fraud narratives and intense scrutiny historically concentrate, but the November 2024 piece is an analytic summary rather than a direct ETA statement. The overlap with common targets of election misinformation suggests a convergence of interest rather than proof of ETA’s exclusive focus; multiple actors referenced these states in late 2024 reporting ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Alternative Narrative: Systemwide Technical Conspiracy Claims

Separate materials present a broader, technology-centered allegation that a corporate, AI, and satellite-enabled rewiring of election infrastructure affected 2024 outcomes—an account that does not narrow ETA’s work to particular states ^[5]. These sources shift the frame from state-level anomalies to alleged nationwide systemic vulnerabilities. The presence of such sweeping technical narratives in July 2025 complicates attribution: if ETA embraced or echoed these claims, its focus would be national and methodological, not state-specific. The documents provided do not definitively tie ETA to the technical-rewiring narrative, however, leaving that linkage speculative.

6. Context from Other Organizations Active in the Same States

Election-denying organizations and monitoring groups were active in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina during late 2024, a pattern documented in October 2024 coverage ^[4]. That activity helps explain why third-party analyses would list those states when discussing 2024 irregularity claims; the prevalence of multiple actors in the same jurisdictions creates reporting echo chambers. The presence of other groups does not prove ETA led investigations in those states; it does, however, increase the likelihood that ETA-related claims would be conflated with broader efforts by similarly motivated organizations ^[4].

7. Comparing Dates and Reliability — Early Claims vs. Later Clarifications

Chronologically, the earliest document in this set linking ETA to multiple battlegrounds comes from November 26, 2024 ^[2], followed by a January 2025 Nevada-specific claim ^[1], and then July–September 2025 materials that emphasize tech allegations or procedural reform without naming states ^{[5] [3]}. This timeline suggests initial third-party attribution to common battlegrounds, a later narrow claim about Nevada, and eventual ETA messaging that avoids state lists. The shifting record points to either evolving focus, inconsistent public reporting, or downstream conflation by other actors, meaning assertions about “which states ETA focused on” require contemporary primary-source confirmation from ETA or jurisdictional records.

8. Bottom Line — What Can Be Stated as Fact Right Now

From the documents provided, the only verifiable facts are: one report names Nevada/Clark County as investigated by ETA (January 2025) and another lists Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan as states of concern in late November 2024; ETA’s own later materials promote full hand counts and election integrity guidance without naming specific states ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Because these sources conflict and ETA’s direct communications omit a definitive state list, the most accurate conclusion is that no single authoritative public record in this set confirms a definitive, exhaustive list of states targeted by ETA’s 2024 irregularities investigation.