Election Litigation Trends to Watch Ahead of the 2026 Midterms

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, courts across the country are considering disputes that could affect how votes are cast, counted, and certified.

Election Reformers Network's Election Litigation Tracker follows more than 200 election-related lawsuits across the country, providing accessible summaries of cases involving election governance, voting procedures, and other consequential issues.

Three areas of litigation are particularly worth watching as Election Day draws closer.

Federal Intervention in State Elections

A growing set of legal disputes concerns the federal government's role in elections traditionally administered by state and local officials. Recent lawsuits challenge federal efforts to obtain voter information and influence election procedures.

• EPIC v. USCIS challenges federal programs seeking to compile and share citizenship information with state election officials, raising concerns about privacy and the use of federal databases.

• Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. DHS challenges federal efforts to identify potential noncitizens on California's voter rolls. Plaintiffs argue that reliance on federal databases could incorrectly flag eligible naturalized citizens.

• LULAC v. DHS and DSCC v. ICE challenge federal policies permitting armed immigration enforcement personnel at polling places.

Together, these cases raise significant questions about federal authority, voter privacy, and the responsibilities of state and local election officials.

Voting Procedures and Mail Voting

Other lawsuits focus on the rules governing how Americans cast their ballots, particularly through mail voting. With Election Day approaching, some of these disputes could have immediate consequences for voters and election administrators.

• ‍California v. United States Postal Service challenged new federal requirements affecting the delivery of mail ballots, ballot envelope design, and the disclosure of voters' personal information. Courts temporarily paused enforcement of the new policies as litigation continues.

• League of Women Voters v. Wisconsin Elections Commission challenges a Wisconsin policy barring voters whose absentee ballots are delayed or lost in the mail from casting provisional ballots in person on Election Day. Courts have declined to grant temporary relief ahead of the election, leaving the restriction in place for November.

• Disability Rights Montana v. Jacobsen challenged a state law requiring voters to provide their date of birth on absentee ballot materials. On October 5, a court ruled that the requirement violated Montana's Constitution, preventing election officials from rejecting ballots solely because voters omitted that information.

These cases illustrates how disputes over mail ballot delivery, voter eligibility to cast a replacement ballot, and ballot rejection requirements can shape whether votes are successfully cast and counted.

Redistricting

Redistricting remains a major source of election litigation, with disputes over congressional maps, mid-decade redistricting, and the legal standards governing racial and partisan gerrymandering. Recent developments could have consequences for both the 2026 elections and future redistricting efforts.

• Von Glahn v. Hoskins challenged the secretary of state's rejection of a referendum petition seeking to put Missouri's 2025 congressional map before voters, which would also prevent use of those maps in the midterms (despite the new maps having been used in the primary). In Onder v. Missouri, congressional candidates and voters challenged the prospect of using different congressional maps for the 2026 primary and general elections. Courts ruled that the 2025 maps are on hold while the referendum proceeds; the state will use its previous map for the November 2026 elections.

• Several consolidated redistricting cases, including Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity v. Raffensperger, Grant v. Raffensperger, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, challenge Georgia's state legislative maps under the Voting Rights Act. In August 2026, a federal appeals court ordered reconsideration of earlier findings in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which narrowed the legal standards governing racial vote-dilution claims.

• Bothfeld v. Wisconsin Elections Commission and Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission challenge Wisconsin's congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan or anti-competitive gerrymander. Lower courts dismissed both cases, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeals and held oral arguments in September.

Together, these disputes highlight ongoing legal battles over when electoral maps can be changed, how courts evaluate racial and partisan gerrymandering, and the rules governing political representation.

Looking Ahead

With the midterms approaching, courts are being asked to resolve disputes involving the balance of federal and state authority, the practical rules of voting, and the boundaries of political representation. Some cases have already produced significant decisions, while others remain unresolved.

Their outcomes may affect not only the 2026 elections but also the legal framework governing future elections.

Explore ERN's Election Litigation Tracker for case summaries, recent developments, and additional information about significant election-related litigation across the country.