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.
What is the Election Truth Alliance and its goals?
Executive Summary
The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) presents itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit group founded in late 2024 that pursues forensic data analysis, advocacy for hand audits, and public pressure to verify paper records from the 2024 U.S. election. ETA’s stated goals center on identifying statistical anomalies, promoting state-level audits and recounts rather than federal litigation, and producing reports that it says justify legislative and procedural reforms to election administration [1] [2] [3]. Coverage of ETA’s activities shows both supporters emphasizing audit advocacy and critics noting a lack of independent, peer-reviewed validation of ETA’s statistical methods; the organization’s public footprint is primarily reports, toolkits, and calls for audits rather than formal courtroom challenges or established partnerships [4] [5] [6].
1. A New Player with a Clear Playbook: What ETA Claims It Does and Wants
ETA describes itself as an organization focused on preserving election integrity by applying statistical and forensic techniques to publicly available vote data, then urging hand audits of paper ballots where anomalies appear. The group’s materials outline a playbook that includes producing forensic reports on specific states—North Carolina and Pennsylvania are repeatedly cited—publishing toolkits for local advocates, soliciting donations and volunteers, and pushing state officials and the public to demand manual audits of paper records to reconcile discrepancies between paper and machine tallies. ETA’s founders and organizers are identified in their own materials, and their communications emphasize data-driven advocacy and grassroots mobilization rather than litigation as the primary mechanism for change [1] [7] [8].
2. The Evidence ETA Presents: Statistical Flags Versus Peer Review
ETA’s reports highlight statistical anomalies—unusual drop-off rates, vote-count patterns in swing jurisdictions, and other numerical irregularities—as reasons to call for full hand audits of paper records. These analyses are framed as forensic and factual, and ETA cites academic studies and expert testimony to justify its methodology. Critics and fact-checkers note, however, that ETA’s publicly available materials do not include independently peer-reviewed validation of its statistical techniques nor contemporaneous responses from state election officials addressing ETA’s specific claims. That gap matters because forensic-style statistical flags can indicate problems that merit investigation but do not, on their own, establish a causal finding of manipulation; ETA’s own stated remedy—hand audits—acknowledges this evidentiary limitation by seeking verification through paper-vote reconciliation [4] [6] [9].
3. Strategy and Tactics: Advocacy, Not Federal Lawsuits
Public records and ETA’s communications indicate the organization primarily channels its efforts into state-level advocacy, public reports, and mobilization tools rather than federal litigation. ETA has published an “Audit Advocacy Toolkit,” focused organizing on Pennsylvania, and issued a high-profile report alleging irregularities in North Carolina’s 2024 results dated August 27, 2025, which called explicitly for hand audits. Available analyses show no evidence that ETA filed federal lawsuits challenging 2024 results; instead, the organization’s approach concentrates on persuading state officials, local election administrators, and the public to pursue manual verification and statutory changes where ETA sees vulnerabilities [1] [7] [5].
4. Reception and Critiques: Supporters and Skeptics Draw Different Conclusions
Supporters of ETA’s work emphasize that the organization fills a gap by applying forensic scrutiny to election datasets and by advocating for hand audits as a concrete check on machine tallies. This constituency frames ETA as contributing to election security by demanding transparency and procedural safeguards. Skeptics, including some fact-checkers and election officials referenced in source materials, argue ETA’s findings are speculative absent independent verification and that statistical anomalies require cautious interpretation. Reporting on ETA highlights this divide: ETA frames results as justifying audits, while external coverage repeatedly notes the absence of peer review and mixed evidence that ETA materially influenced official recounts or legal outcomes [7] [4] [5].
5. The Big Picture: What ETA’s Activities Mean for Election Oversight Going Forward
ETA’s emergence illustrates a broader post-2024 phenomenon: grassroots and newly formed nonprofits using data analysis to push for election-procedure changes and manual verification mechanisms. Whether ETA’s work produces policy change will depend on state officials’ willingness to authorize and fund hand audits, independent validation of ETA’s methods, and public appetite for reforms framed around ETA’s findings. The organization’s focus on audits and localized advocacy aligns it with other integrity-focused actors but also places it at the center of debates over evidentiary standards and the political use of forensic claims; ETA’s future influence will hinge on converting statistical flags into verifiable, jurisdiction-accepted audit results and on transparent methodological validation that addresses critiques detailed in multiple analyses [8] [2] [3].