What independent election-forensics experts have publicly evaluated Election Truth Alliance reports on the 2024 election?
Executive summary
No independent election‑forensics experts are identified in the provided reporting as having publicly evaluated Election Truth Alliance’s (ETA) 2024 reports; the materials instead show ETA’s own analyses and the group’s citation of well‑known forensic methods attributed to Sergei Shpilkin and Dr. Peter Klimek without evidence those experts reviewed ETA’s work [1] [2]. ETA’s public documents call for independent audits and cite statistical patterns “consistent with” ballot stuffing as justification for further review, but the reporting supplied does not include independent expert validations of ETA’s specific findings [2].
1. What the Election Truth Alliance published, and what it claims
ETA has published a public “2024 U.S. Election Analysis” on its website describing precinct‑level and county reports that it says “uncovers forensic data, swing‑state irregularities, and the need for transparent hand audits,” and the group has placed county‑level longform and shortform source data for states like Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina and Pennsylvania on that site [1]. Separately, ETA issued a Preliminary Report on Substack in October 2025 that analyzes precinct results from South Florida counties and concludes there are “statistical patterns consistent with vote manipulation,” recommending independent audits, chain‑of‑custody reviews, and precinct hand counts as next steps [2]. Both documents present statistical arguments and call for third‑party verification rather than asserting courtroom proof [1] [2].
2. Which named experts appear in ETA’s reporting — and what that actually means
ETA’s Preliminary Report explicitly references the “statistical fingerprints” and methods associated with Sergei Shpilkin and Dr. Peter Klimek, saying its observed patterns “mirror” the signatures of ballot stuffing and turnout inflation that those experts have described, but the report stops short of claiming either expert reviewed ETA’s datasets or endorsed ETA’s conclusions [2]. That distinction matters: citing an analytical framework or pattern described by an academic or practitioner is not the same as an independent evaluation or peer review of a new agency’s methods and conclusions, and the available reporting contains no indication Shpilkin or Klimek publicly evaluated ETA’s Florida analyses [2].
3. Absence of documented independent forensic evaluations in the reporting
The supplied sources do not show any independent election‑forensics experts publicly evaluating ETA’s overall 2024 reports; the website and Substack present ETA’s own interpretations and explicitly call for “independent audits” as the next step, implying ETA did not conduct or secure external forensic attestations prior to publication [1] [2]. There is no citation in these materials of outside firms, university researchers, or state‑level auditors issuing public comment or verification of ETA’s specific precinct‑level findings in the reporting provided [1] [2]. If independent expert reviews exist, they are not documented in the two sources offered here.
4. Alternative viewpoints, potential agendas, and limits of the record
ETA describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of citizens, data scientists, statisticians, cybersecurity experts, and legal advocates and distributes a reader‑supported Substack, which is relevant to assessing motives and funding transparency but does not substitute for independent scientific validation [2]. The reporting also emphasizes that statistical anomalies “alone do not establish unlawful conduct,” a caveat ETA repeats while arguing for audits — a rhetorical posture that both invites further scrutiny and can be used to frame subsequent disputes over interpretations [2]. Because the provided reporting neither includes third‑party reviews nor documents rebuttals from the named forensic experts, readers must treat the absence of outside evaluation in these sources as a real informational gap rather than evidence that such reviews do not exist elsewhere [1] [2].
5. What would conclusively answer the question and where to look next
A conclusive answer would come from public statements, peer‑reviewed assessments, or formal audit reports by named election‑forensics experts or institutions explicitly evaluating ETA’s datasets and methods; the materials supplied here do not contain such items, and so cannot substantiate claims that independent experts have publicly evaluated ETA’s 2024 reports [1] [2]. The most direct next steps to close this gap are to search for public comments by Sergei Shpilkin or Dr. Peter Klimek regarding ETA’s work, look for institutional audits cited by ETA’s pages, or check media and academic outlets for independent replication studies referencing ETA’s datasets [2].