What are the stated goals and activities of the Election Truth Alliance?
Executive summary
The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) is a nonprofit formed in December 2024 that says its purpose is to “explore, examine, and communicate challenges to election integrity,” publish independent analyses of 2024 voting data, and press for audits or validation where it finds anomalies [1] [2]. ETA’s public work to date emphasizes data forensic reviews of county-level cast-vote and ballot data — for example reports on Clark County, Nevada and North Carolina 2024 analyses — and calls for independent audits when analysts interpret patterns as evidence of manipulation [3] [4].
1. Origins and stated mission: a citizen-led watchdog for “election integrity”
ETA presents itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit coalition formed by concerned citizens in late 2024 to “verify the vote” in the 2024 U.S. general election. The group frames its mission around investigating, analyzing, and communicating perceived problems in election administration, and invites public dialogue and local reform based on its findings [1] [2]. ETA’s Substack introduction repeatedly emphasizes using “data, facts, and verifiable leads” as tools in that effort [1].
2. Primary activities: data analysis, reports, and public advocacy
The organization’s visible activities are data-driven: publishing forensic-style analyses of election datasets (cast vote records, ballot-level files) and circulation of written reports and press releases claiming statistical anomalies. ETA’s analysts have issued specific studies — publicly cited releases include a Clark County, Nevada analysis alleging vote-patterns “consistent with manipulation” and a North Carolina 2024 Election Data Analysis posted on the ETA site [3] [4]. The group also uses Substack and press channels to disseminate findings and solicit public attention [1] [2].
3. Requests and recommended remedies: audits and validation
Where ETA’s analyses identify patterns they regard as suspicious, the organization explicitly urges independent audits or validation of official results. In its Clark County release and other communications ETA frames its findings as grounds to “pursue an independent audit and validation” of the 2024 presidential results [3]. ETA’s messaging encourages readers to engage civic leaders and press for legislative or procedural changes intended to increase transparency [1] [5].
4. How ETA presents evidence: data-first rhetoric, forensic framing
ETA deploys forensic language — “data analysts,” “statistical ‘election integrity red flags,’” and detailed references to cast vote records — to lend technical authority to its claims [4] [3]. Its public materials juxtapose machine-count and hand-count precinct comparisons and assert that certain statistical patterns appeared only in machine-count precincts [4]. ETA’s rhetoric stresses that “numbers don’t lie” and positions its analyses as objective challenges to official tallies [3].
5. Public reach and communications channels
ETA uses a mixture of owned channels (their website and Substack), press services (EINPresswire), and social platforms to reach audiences. Their Substack posts provide narrative context about the group’s founding and aims; press releases announce specific analytical conclusions and calls for audits [1] [2] [3]. Civic actors and members of the public have referenced ETA materials in outreach to officials, per a letter reproduced via a third-party service urging lawmakers to review ETA’s Clark County work [5].
6. Competing perspectives and what the sources do not show
The provided sources present ETA’s analyses and recommendations but do not include responses from election officials, independent verification by neutral third-party auditors, or peer-reviewed methodological critiques (available sources do not mention official reactions or independent corroboration). The materials are produced by ETA (and disseminated via outlets such as EINPresswire), so readers should note the potential for organizational framing: ETA’s findings come from its analysts and the group is actively advocating for audits and reforms [2] [3].
7. What to watch and verify next
To assess ETA’s claims beyond their own reporting, seek: audit or recount outcomes if jurisdictions act on ETA’s requests; statements from county or state election officials about the specific datasets ETA analyzed; and independent methodological reviews by neutral statisticians or election-forensics experts — none of which are provided in the current ETA materials (available sources do not mention independent reviews or official responses). Until such independent vetting is published, ETA’s analyses should be treated as advocacy-backed technical work that requires external validation [3] [4].
Limitations: This summary relies only on ETA’s public site, Substack posts, and their press release material; there are no cited third-party validations or rebuttals in the supplied sources (available sources do not mention external validation) [1] [3] [4].