Fact check: The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) has credible data on North Carolina 2024 general election irregularities

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal limited evidence to support the claim that the Election Truth Alliance (ETA) has credible data specifically on North Carolina 2024 general election irregularities. While the ETA exists as a self-described nonpartisan nonprofit organization ^[1], the available sources provide minimal substantiation for their claims regarding North Carolina specifically.

The ETA does list North Carolina as one of their focus areas on their website ^[2], and they have analyzed voting behavior in 2024 swing states, claiming to find results "consistent with vote manipulation" ^[3]. However, no sources provide specific details about what constitutes their "credible data" on North Carolina irregularities or present independent verification of their methodology or findings.

Meanwhile, North Carolina election officials have been actively addressing election-related concerns through official channels, including a "Mythbuster Monday" series aimed at debunking election myths ^[4], and managing routine voter roll maintenance that removed over 747,000 ineligible voters ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement omits several crucial pieces of context:

• Official election oversight mechanisms already exist in North Carolina, with the State Board of Elections actively working to counter misinformation through their myth-busting initiatives ^[4]
• Routine election administration activities are being mischaracterized as irregularities, such as the removal of 747,000 registrants from voter rolls, which was standard list maintenance but sparked misinformation campaigns ^[5]
• Technology-enabled voter challenges are occurring, with groups using EagleAI Network to compile "suspicious voter" lists, raising concerns about voter suppression tactics targeting specific populations ^[6]
• Legal disputes surrounding the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election involved actual court proceedings and official oversight, not grassroots data collection efforts ^{[7] [8] [9]}

Alternative viewpoints include:

• Election officials and voting rights advocates who view such claims as voter suppression efforts disguised as election integrity measures
• Those who benefit from promoting election doubt narratives may include political operatives seeking to undermine confidence in electoral processes

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement presents several concerning elements:

• Unsubstantiated credibility claims: The assertion that ETA has "credible data" lacks independent verification or peer review from established election security experts ^[3]
• Vague terminology: The use of "irregularities" without specific definition allows for broad interpretation that could encompass normal administrative processes as suspicious activity
• Missing source transparency: The statement fails to acknowledge that ETA's methodology and data sources are not independently verified or endorsed by established election security organizations
• Selective framing: The statement ignores official election oversight mechanisms already in place and amplifies unverified claims while dismissing established institutional safeguards ^[4]

The pattern suggests potential confirmation bias, where the ETA's conclusions align with predetermined beliefs about election integrity rather than objective analysis of verifiable data.