Which states' secretaries of state have publicly addressed Election Truth Alliance claims?
Executive summary
Several sources show the Election Truth Alliance (ETA) has publicly pushed analyses and legal actions aimed at secretaries of state — notably filing a lawsuit naming Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt and copying him on earlier letters — but available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of which secretaries of state have publicly responded to ETA claims [1] [2]. National associations representing secretaries of state emphasize a coordinated public-information role for election officials but do not list specific responses to ETA [3].
1. ETA’s public targeting of secretaries: lawsuits and letters
The Election Truth Alliance has actively sought to compel state election officials to act: PR Newswire reports ETA filed a lawsuit in November 2025 that names Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt and several county boards, seeking hand-count audits of 2024 results [1]. ETA’s own materials show it sent a letter to Governor Josh Shapiro that was cc:’d to Secretary Schmidt in April 2025 and has promoted “weeks of action” aimed at state election actors [2]. Those items show ETA’s strategy is to press specific secretaries or equivalent officials into public response or remedial action [1] [2].
2. What national election-official groups say — a different public posture
The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) runs a #TrustedInfo initiative that frames secretaries as “trusted sources of election information” and directs voters to official channels for election facts [3]. That program signals a proactive, educational posture from the officeholders collectively but does not enumerate which individual secretaries have answered ETA allegations. NASS’s public-education focus suggests the association encourages officials to speak publicly, yet it does not confirm direct responses to ETA’s specific claims [3].
3. Evidence of media and watchdog attention — not direct rebuttals
Reporting and reference material around 2024–25 election controversy shows ETA’s analyses have been cited in broader coverage of post‑2024 election disputes — for example, a Wikipedia article on efforts to disrupt the 2024 election notes ETA’s analysis of Clark County and its characterization of “Russian tail”-like patterns in CVRs — but that source does not document secretaries’ replies [4]. In short, national and secondary reporting acknowledge ETA’s claims have circulated, but available sources do not show which secretaries of state publicly addressed or rebutted those claims in official statements [4].
4. Concrete confirmed interactions: Pennsylvania as the clearest case
Among the materials provided, the Pennsylvania instance is the clearest direct interaction: ETA filed a lawsuit that explicitly names Secretary Al Schmidt and sent him a copy of an earlier letter; those filings and notices constitute public pressure and a formal legal action that makes Pennsylvania the most clearly targeted and publicly implicated secretary in these sources [1] [2]. Available sources do not indicate whether Schmidt issued a direct public statement responding to ETA in the documents supplied here; they only confirm he was a named defendant and a recipient of ETA communications [1] [2].
5. Limitations of the record and areas not covered
The sources supplied do not provide a catalog of public replies from secretaries of state across multiple states; they do not show which secretaries — beyond being recipients or named parties — issued press releases, public statements, or legal defenses in response to ETA claims [3] [4] [1] [2]. If you need a definitive list of secretaries who have publicly addressed ETA, that is not found in the current reporting; a targeted search of state press releases, local news coverage, and official secretary social-media feeds would be required.
6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
ETA presents itself as a nonpartisan group seeking election audits and uses statistical analyses to allege irregularities [5] [4]. Mainstream election-official institutions like NASS emphasize that secretaries are the trusted public sources and focus on voter education and confidence-building [3]. The implicit agenda tension: ETA advances audit and litigation strategies to prompt official action [1] [2], while secretaries’ associations prioritize system stability and centralized official communication; available sources do not clarify how individual secretaries balance those pressures in statements [3] [1].
If you want, I can search state press pages and local reporting (e.g., Pennsylvania, Nevada, Minnesota) for any formal responses by named secretaries to ETA’s claims and return a sourced list.