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: What is the relationship between the Election Truth Alliance and other election integrity groups?
Executive Summary
The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) positions itself as an active, independent election-integrity organization that produces forensic reports and advocacy materials but does not present formal, named partnerships with other groups in the materials provided. ETA’s public outputs — special reports on Minnesota and North Carolina, promotional toolkits, and calls for universal hand counts — indicate frequent thematic alignment with other integrity groups and experts, and ETA cites academic studies and expert testimony to justify its methods and policy prescriptions [1] [2] [3] [4]. At the same time, other organizations such as True the Vote are conducting parallel transparency initiatives and FOIA campaigns, showing overlapping goals and occasional tactical similarity without a clearly documented institutional relationship in the supplied records [5] [6]. These materials suggest cooperation by shared purpose and method rather than formal alliance agreements.
1. The Picture ETA Paints: Independent Analyst or Coalition Actor?
ETA’s public documents describe it as an organization that conducts data analyses, issues special reports, and distributes promotional materials, but they stop short of naming recurring partner organizations or formal coalitions. ETA’s FAQ and resource pages note openness to collaboration and rely on external academic and expert sources to inform their methods, which implies methodological collaboration with the broader election-forensics community rather than fixed partnerships [1] [2]. ETA’s prominent reports — notably the Minnesota hand-counts versus machine-counts analysis released in October 2025 — are presented under ETA’s brand and attribution, reinforcing a standalone operational profile [3]. The absence of explicit partner lists or memoranda of understanding in the provided materials indicates ETA chooses to emphasize its own analyses while drawing on outside scholarship, which is consistent with organizations that act as independent watchdogs yet remain networked by shared research and advocacy goals [1] [4].
2. Evidence of Thematic Overlap: Shared Methods and Shared Messaging
Multiple ETA outputs advocate for hand counts of paper records and raise statistical red flags about machine-counted results, a message that mirrors calls from other election integrity actors for increased transparency and manual verification [3] [7]. ETA cites academic studies and expert testimony to support its forensic approach, which both validates its methodology and situates it within a broader scholarly discourse on voting technology vulnerabilities and election forensics [2]. Promotional materials, FOIA-oriented toolkits, and public advocacy language suggest ETA seeks to mobilize similar tactics — data analysis, public reporting, and pressure for procedural reform — used by groups such as True the Vote, which is pursuing transparency via broad FOIA requests [6] [5]. These parallels point to convergent strategy rather than conclusive evidence of direct cooperation or formalized alliances [8] [4].
3. Reports That Drive Credibility—and Controversy
ETA’s Minnesota report, dated October 16, 2025, claims statistically significant differences between hand-counted and machine-counted precincts and recommends urgent scrutiny and universal hand counts moving forward [3]. ETA frames these findings as indicators warranting policy changes prior to certification of results, a strong advocacy stance that aligns with the organization’s broader call for election integrity reforms [7]. ETA’s North Carolina analyses and other releases reinforce a pattern of evidence-driven recommendations for procedural change, but they also place ETA in the middle of contested debates over acceptable standards of statistical evidence and election auditing practice. The materials do not include third-party endorsements or documented joint investigations that would show coordinated action with other advocacy groups [4].
4. Where Other Groups Fit: Parallel Initiatives and Potential Allies
Other groups in the election-integrity ecosystem are active during the same period and pursue complementary actions — for example, True the Vote’s October 2025 FOIA campaign and transparency pushes — but the supplied texts do not document formal collaboration or staff-level linkages [5]. ETA’s promotional and resource materials could facilitate grassroots coordination or rhetorical alignment with other organizations, creating informal networks based on shared goals like increased hand-counting and greater transparency [6] [1]. The evidence points to an ecosystem of like-minded actors with shared methods and messaging rather than a centralized coalition structure; such ecosystems often trade research, best practices, and public framing without necessarily entering into formal partnerships [8] [4].
5. What’s Missing and Why It Matters
The provided records omit formal partnership agreements, joint press releases, cross-branded investigations, or shared funding disclosures that would clarify institutional relationships; that absence is itself informative. ETA’s materials emphasize independence and rigorous analysis while citing external scholarship, suggesting a strategy of building credibility through research rather than coalition-building [2] [4]. For policymakers, journalists, and the public, distinguishing between tactical alignment and contractual partnership matters: tactical alignment signals shared goals and potential influence on public discourse, while contractual partnership would indicate coordinated operations and shared responsibilities. The current record supports the former—shared purpose and methodological overlap—without proving the latter [4] [3].