Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
Wild Cards That Could Disrupt the Midterm Elections
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, a major dispute is unfolding between the federal government and the states over who controls American elections.
The Justice Department has ordered at least 44 states and Washington, DC, to turn over election records. The requests include complete, unredacted voter registration rolls. In some cases, the federal government has also sought access to past ballots or even voting equipment. When more than 20 states and Washington, DC, refused, the federal government filed lawsuits against them.
“Accurate voter rolls are the cornerstone of fair and free elections, and too many states have fallen into a pattern of noncompliance with basic voter roll maintenance,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement. “The Department of Justice will continue filing proactive election integrity litigation until states comply with basic election safeguards.”
These demands have raised concerns about federal overreach. Under the Constitution, states are responsible for administering elections, not the federal government. Critics say the federal government is trying to take on a role it does not have. The records being requested also contain sensitive personal information, including addresses and, in some cases, partial Social Security numbers or driver’s license numbers. State officials argue that turning over such data creates privacy and security risks.
At the same time, Congress is considering new election laws, the SAVE America Act, that would impose stricter voter ID requirements, require more aggressive voter roll purges, and limit mail-in voting. Voting rights advocates warn that, taken together, these actions could make it harder for some people to vote and could increase disputes over election results.
These concerns were discussed at a February 6 briefing hosted by American Community Media. The panel brought together legal scholars and civil rights leaders to examine the growing debate over who controls elections and how they are run. What role will the courts, states, Congress, and voters themselves play in shaping what happens as the midterms approach?
Limits to presidential power in elections
Justin Levitt, a national election law expert at Loyola Law School, stressed that election administration is a state responsibility.
“The President is trying to project power that he does not have.”
Levitt explained that presidents have broad authority granted by the Constitution or by Congress in areas such as tariffs and immigration enforcement, “But elections are different.”
The President is not in charge, Levitt said. “He doesn’t have his hand on the switch that makes things happen … state and local officials …. they’re the ones who control American elections.”
Levitt described the administration’s actions as “highly unusual” and “scary,” but said they do not directly change how voting operates on the ground. He noted that the President is not authorized to collect voter files from states. Courts across the country have blocked executive orders attempting to do so.
The directive, Levitt said, “purports to instruct state officials what to do, and the states aren’t complying because they don’t have to. They don’t have to listen.”
He also emphasized that the President does not have the authority to nationalize or cancel elections, despite public threats to do so. Congress has considered what Levitt called “hefty restrictions” on voting, but he noted that these proposals appear stalled in the Senate “at least for now.” He described the proposed laws as “based in fear mongering about fraud that simply does not exist as a predicate for restricting access.”
One issue that does concern him is mid-decade redistricting. Levitt pointed to “highly unusual mid-decade redistricting for excessively partisan purposes” ahead of the midterms. He expects more changes to district lines in the coming months, forcing voters to adjust to new districts and new representatives.
Still, Levitt predicted strong voter participation. He said signs point to a “voter tsunami” in the fall.
“Voters have agency here. Voters can push back both at the federal level and at the state level, and ultimately, the strongest push back to restrictive laws comes through voters exercising their rights at the ballot box.”
Widespread Refusal by States
The Justice Department argues that it needs voter registration data to ensure that states comply with federal voter roll maintenance laws. But many states have resisted, sparking a nationwide legal battle.
According to reports by The Brennan Center for Justice, about half of all states, primarily those with Democratic governors, have flatly refused the request. Officials in states such as Minnesota, Maine, and New Hampshire say the demands violate state privacy laws and represent unconstitutional federal overreach.
At least 11 to 13 Republican-led states have complied or indicated a willingness to comply. Texas and Alaska have signed “confidential memorandum of understanding” agreements to provide full voter lists. Nebraska handed over sensitive information, including driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. Florida and Utah submitted publicly available versions of their voter files.
However, even some Republican election officials have balked at sharing non-public data.
Results of Lawsuits
The legal fight is now playing out in federal courts across the country.
The Justice Department has filed lawsuits against at least 24 states and Washington, DC, seeking to compel compliance. But several federal judges in California, Oregon, and Michigan have dismissed these cases. One judge in California called the request “unprecedented and illegal.”
These rulings suggest that courts are taking into account the constitutional limits on federal power over state-run elections.
Challenges and Responses from Voting Rights Lawyers
Danielle Lang, Vice President for Voting Rights & Rule of Law at Campaign Legal Center, is among the lawyers challenging the administration’s actions. She represents organizations, including the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Secure Families Initiative.
Lang said her team was the first to issue a legal challenge after the President signed an executive order aimed at taking greater control over federal elections.
“We quickly won a preliminary injunction on what was the kind of most immediate threat, which was his command that the Election Assistance Commission changed the requirements for voter registration on the federal voter registration form.”
In addition to challenging the executive order, voting rights lawyers are fighting DOJ efforts to obtain voter rolls and to restrict voter registration activities at naturalization ceremonies.
Lang described the administration’s use of the Civil Rights Act to seek voter records as a “power grab.”
“They’ve been pretty clear in public about the purpose of hoovering up this data, and it has nothing to do with enforcing the Civil Rights Act. And courts have been able to see through that quite clearly.”
Impact on Vulnerable Communities
John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), emphasized that voting rights are ‘a central pillar’ in advancing civil and human rights, especially for Asian Americans.
“It’s not a privilege, it’s a right for all citizens.”
Yang noted that public polling consistently shows that Americans favor making voting easier, not harder. Restrictions, he said, create unnecessary burdens unless there is clear evidence they are needed.
About 24 million Asian Americans live in the United States, making them the fastest-growing racial group in the country. Nearly 60 percent of eligible Asian Americans voted in the 2020 election.
“So, our vote clearly matters.”
Yet Yang warned that Asian American voters face ongoing challenges. These include voter intimidation, redistricting, threats to language access, limits on early and absentee voting, deceptive practices, and racially motivated voter challenges.
“The right to vote is under attack.”
He also noted that Asian Americans are often still viewed as “foreigners” rather than full participants in American civic life. As marginalized communities become more politically active in cities and rural areas alike, he said, they sometimes face backlash.
AAJC works to counter exclusionary laws and practices. The organization assists voters with disabilities and operates a language assistance hotline — 1-800-API-VOTE — to help voters with limited English proficiency understand ballots and election materials. The group also monitors misinformation and disinformation in Asian languages, which can be used to intimidate or discourage voters.
Andrea Senteno, DC Regional Counsel for MALDEF, a Latino legal civil rights organization, said Latino communities also face barriers. She pointed to gaps in voter registration and turnout rates as evidence that suppression and discrimination persist.
“Some of the tactics that we see officials use to deny access to the ballot or to dilute the vote of the Latino community or other communities of color …. those look like unlawful voter purges,” she said.
Senteno cited restrictions on language assistance, mail ballots, voter registration drives, and proof-of-citizenship requirements. She also mentioned recent calls for immigration enforcement presence at polling places.
“They create intentionally confusion and fear and distrust, which ultimately deters eligible voters from participating in elections,” she warned.
Despite these concerns, panelists stressed that voters still have power.
“It is important for people to recognize what their rights are, to go into the ballot box. Look, our voices, our votes really matter,” Yang emphasized.