How does the Election Truth Alliance promote election integrity?

1. What ETA says it does: public forensic-style analyses

ETA presents itself as a non‑partisan nonprofit that studies election results using multiple analytical approaches drawn from election forensics; its North Carolina 2024 analysis and related reports are explicitly based on “publicly‑available election data,” and the group claims its methods are grounded in established election forensics work ^{[1] [2] [3]}. ETA’s website and press materials promote reports that identify statistical “red flags” — for example, differences they say appear in machine‑count vs. hand‑count precincts — and they publish both findings and methodological explanations for public review ^{[2] [3]}.

2. How ETA communicates and lobbies for follow‑up action

ETA does not limit itself to releasing reports; it also urges officials and citizens to examine their analyses and to consider legislative or administrative steps. A constituent letter reproduced on Resistbot cites ETA’s Clark County, Nevada analysis and urges elected officials to review ETA’s findings and consider proposing electoral security reforms — an example of how ETA’s material is used in advocacy or constituent outreach ^[4]. PR Newswire coverage of ETA’s North Carolina report likewise frames the document as something that should prompt further scrutiny by officials and the public ^[1].

3. Methods claimed and transparency about methodology

ETA publishes a methodology page explaining that it “utilizes multiple analytical approaches” and provides illustrative examples of what anomalous patterns might look like in precinct‑level data ^[3]. The group says its methods are informed by experts “at home and abroad” and that their work relies on statistical comparisons across precincts, counties, and types of vote counting ^{[1] [3]}. ETA highlights differences it sees between jurisdictions where votes were machine‑counted versus hand‑counted as part of its analytic claims ^{[2] [1]}.

4. Key claims and the evidence they cite

In its North Carolina report, ETA asserts patterns “consistent with vote manipulation” and notes that in 2024, it alleges 93% of North Carolina counties used machines that did not receive full certification testing; the report says multiple analysis methods produced consistent patterns it interprets as evidence of manipulation ^[1]. The organization emphasizes that its findings derive from publicly available cast‑vote records and other official data sources ^[1].

5. What the provided sources do not cover

Available sources do not mention independent peer review or publication of ETA’s analyses in academic journals, nor do they present counter‑analyses by state election officials or third‑party election researchers responding to ETA’s specific claims (not found in current reporting). The materials provided also do not include complete details about ETA’s governance, funding, or who specifically authored each methodological component beyond named spokespeople in press materials (not found in current reporting).

6. How to evaluate ETA’s work — competing perspectives to consider

Supporters can point to ETA’s public data releases and transparent methodological writeups as markers of constructive forensic inquiry that encourages oversight ^{[3] [1]}. Critics, or those seeking caution, would typically look for independent replication, peer review, confirmation from election administrators, and evidence that statistical anomalies reflect manipulation rather than data quirks, software behavior, or legitimate process differences; the provided sources do not supply those independent confirmations (p1_s4; not found in current reporting). Policymakers and journalists using ETA’s claims are urged by example materials to “review the analysis” and pursue follow‑up, which means verification steps remain central to assessing ETA’s conclusions ^[4].

7. Bottom line for readers and officials

ETA advances election‑integrity objectives by producing forensic‑style statistical reports, publishing its methods, and pressing for official review and reforms based on its findings ^{[1] [3] [4]}. Whether those findings constitute proof of manipulation requires additional, independent verification from election administrators, peer reviewers, or other forensic teams — information that the supplied sources do not provide (not found in current reporting).