Election Truth Alliance

08/24/2026

What's the most annoying election security myth for you? Let us know in the comments.

Here's a top pick for us:

Myth #7: Election machinery is “air-gapped”, making interference impossible.

Reality: An “air-gap” is a fancy term that means physically isolating a computer or network from other networks — like the broader internet — in an effort to mitigate or prevent unauthorized access and data breaches. While air-gapped systems are generally considered safer than non-air gapped systems, they are not immune to breaches. At least 17 high-profile examples of breaches to air-gapped systems have been the subject of news coverage since 2010, including on voting systems, power grids, and systems operating nuclear centrifuges.

While air-gapping is frequently referenced as supporting evidence to bolster claims that interfering with election machinery is impossible, there are numerous points of attack – including supply chain attacks (i.e. compromising a vendor/private election equipment company), malware-infected thumb drives used for software updates or memory cards used to program the machines before elections, as well as the local networks that connect the machines to election management systems – that can get around air-gapping measures.

https://electiontruthalliance.substack.com/i/211353520/myth-7-election-machinery-is-air-gapped-making-interference-impossible

08/23/2026

On to Myth #6: The private election equipment and tech companies are well-vetted by the relevant government agencies.

Reality: Although designated as "critical infrastructure" in 2017, unlike other sectors such as energy and defense, election tech companies are subject to little federal regulation — voting systems undergo voluntary certification, but the private election equipment companies are largely unchecked. These companies tend to operate with limited transparency regarding their finances, ownership structures and inner workings, including keeping their vote-counting source code closed off from independent review.

That leaves the public in the dark on basics: the companies often aren't required to disclose foreign ownership, the identities of investors, supply-chain details, cybersecurity practices, or even past breaches. These unaccountable private companies have become central to core U.S. election functions including registration databases, poll books, election management systems, and voting machines.

https://electiontruthalliance.substack.com/i/211353520/myth-6-the-private-election-equipment-and-tech-companies-are-well-vetted-by-the-relevant-government-agencies

08/22/2026

Have you busted some election myths recently? Let us know in the comments as we roll into Saturday with Myth #5!

MYTH #5: Election equipment and election management systems are neutral tools and are not associated with partisan interests.

https://electiontruthalliance.substack.com/i/211353520/myth-5-election-equipment-and-election-management-systems-are-neutral-tools-and-are-not-associated-with-partisan-interests

Reality: There are conflicts of interest with respect to the small number of private companies that provide the election equipment and systems used by the majority of U.S. voters. In 2025, Dominion Voting Systems was bought by a former Republican election official, Scott Leinendecker, and rebranded as Liberty Vote. Lienendecker also owns KNOWiNK, the commercial electronic pollbooks used to verify voter eligibility at check-in and sync turnout data for over 36 million voters across 29 different states. Election Systems & Software (ES&S) also has a history of linkages to Republican causes and candidates going back to at least 2004, including campaign donations from ES&S lobbyists to Senator Mitch McConnell in the months before he blocked two election security bills that would have imposed new cybersecurity regulations.

These companies are also subject to minimal oversight or transparency requirements. Some of these companies are even more unclear when it comes to the identities of their boards, investors, and owners. As summarized in a 2019 Guardian article, “Across the spectrum, private vendors have long histories of errors that affected elections, of obstructing politicians and the public from seeking information, of corruption, suspect foreign influence, false statements of security and business dishonesty.“

08/21/2026

These recent election news stories have sparked a lot of conversation, so we’re chiming in to talk about election integrity.

Recently, President Trump has reportedly voted by mail, again, despite ongoing attacks regarding the security of mail-in voting. As you'd say: what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Moreover, our state analyses of mail-in voting data typically appears clear of 'election integrity red flags' seen with in-person voting data.

Meanwhile, up north in Minnesota, Mike Lindell is reportedly pursuing a recount. We support all candidate’s right to recount under state laws.

Hand recounts, under careful chain-of-custody procedures, can help serve to prove that election results are accurate, verifying the vote — and hopefully putting accusations and concerns to rest.

We look forward to watching to see if, and how, this pursuit progresses.

08/21/2026

Myth #4: If malicious actors tried to attack our election infrastructure, we'd know about it...

Like, comment, download, print, and share far and wide to help us debunk the myths and spread awareness about the realities of U.S. 🗳️ security.

https://electiontruthalliance.substack.com/i/211353520/myth-4-if-malicious-actors-tried-to-attack-our-election-infrastructure-wed-know-about-it

Reality: It can take years after an attack on election infrastructure for its impact to become publicly known, if it ever becomes known at all. During the 2016 election, hacking of election machinery posed a real, evidence-backed threat. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and National Security Agency (NSA) acknowledged foreign interference (especially from Russia) as a serious danger, pointing to the DNC breach and attacks on voter registration databases in Illinois and Arizona.

A Bipartisan U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee was created to look into and report on this threat. However, the findings from this Committee were not made public until three years later in 2019. This means that for three years, the public was not made aware of the scale and seriousness of this attack.

This attack has also been misleadingly downplayed as a partisan “hoax”. Additionally, the relevant federal agencies have not prioritized shoring up those vulnerabilities that allowed these attacks.

With the dismantling of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and other agencies, the chances of the American public “knowing about this type of attack as it happens” is less likely than ever unless additional security measures are put in place.

08/20/2026

Certification does not equal verification, or complete election security.

Like, comment, and share to help us debunk the myths and spread awareness about the realities of U.S. election integrity.



Myth 3: Election machinery being certified by state or federal officials means it is completely secure.

https://electiontruthalliance.substack.com/i/211353520/myth-3-election-machinery-being-certified-by-state-or-federal-officials-means-it-is-completely-secure

Reality: Federally, the election machinery certification process is voluntary. Machine manufacturers can choose to submit their machines to independent testing labs for certification. This is approved by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) with input from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These machines are evaluated against a rulebook — the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. The lab would then send a recommendation to the recently disbanded EAC, which would typically make the final certification call. After certification, oversight relies mainly on manufacturers self-reporting: companies are meant to report irregularities with their machines and disclose any modifications; however, their compliance is rarely enforced.

States aren’t required by federal law to use EAC-certified machines; over 40 states choose to require federal certification (or parts of it), but each state decides for itself. States also sometimes opt to bypass the re-certification process after changes or updates are made to already-certified machines. A minority of states have their own state-specific certification standards and testing protocols, which often incorporate some component of the federal guidelines as a baseline. California, for example, requires approval from its Secretary of State and has its own voting system standards that include specific public hearings, examination requirements, and approval processes.

08/19/2026

Are you already debunking myths in your day to day life? We're on to Myth #2!

Like, comment, download, print, and share far and wide to help us debunk the myths and spread awareness about the realities of U.S. 🗳️ security.

08/19/2026

The ETA is a 501(c)(3) non-partisan, non-profit dedicated to supporting election integrity through education, research, analysis, and civic engagement.

Like Mark, we know there remains a looming cloud of unanswered questions regarding 2024. We'll continue to stick to the facts and seek out the truth. Can we count you in?

08/18/2026

Let's bust these myths one at a time.

Like, comment, download, print, and share far and wide to help us debunk the myths and spread awareness about the realities of U.S. 🗳️ security.

Pay attention, there will be a quiz at the end! 🤓

08/17/2026

Federal voting machine researchers found vulnerabilities with critical equipment used during the 2020 U.S. election, but could not yet verify if they were exploited. Their work abruptly ended after Trump ally pushed back on their findings.

It's difficult to accept 'no evidence of election interference' when researchers are blocked from fully completing their work. What's more, why are we not investigating if compromised systems may be used to undermine the integrity of following elections?

Read the full story: https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2026/08/voting-machine-researchers-say-federal-work-abruptly-ended-after-trump-ally-pushed-back-their-findings/415300/

Learn how to help do something about it: ETA.VOTE

Mojave Research executives said at DEF CON that the government had been preparing to expand the company’s election security work, and linked Trump adviser Kurt Olsen to pressure they faced after finding election system vulnerabilities but no evidence votes were altered.