Navigating the Midterms: From Legal Challenges to Voter Rights

Host Alex Ossola opens by noting that the Trump administration has spent the run-up to the 2026 midterms trying to expand its role in elections through legal challenges and proposed changes to mail-in voting. WSJ legal affairs reporter Louise Radnofsky says the defining feature of this election is the “extreme degree of anxiety” among voters and state officials, who have gamed out numerous possibilities for what could go wrong. Radnofsky says President Trump has repeatedly questioned the U.S. election system, but that in his second term the frequency and breadth of those claims have become especially notable. Trump has described the system as broken and vulnerable, citing alleged foreign access to voter files and the possibility of hacking or manipulation of voting machines and ballot-counting systems. Radnofsky says officials and voters interpret these statements as preparation for challenging results, particularly through claims that ineligible people voted. The central concern is not only whether individual procedures work, but whether the administration will accept the results once counting is complete.

Radnofsky tells Ossola that the Trump administration has already gone to federal court in Alaska and California before the election results have been fully counted. In California, the administration is seeking to require counties to set aside as many as 20,000 ballots that it alleges may have been cast by noncitizens. The administration has also issued criminal subpoenas to state and local officials. The administration was denied an emergency order by an appeals court and denied a restraining order by a district court, but it returned to the appeals court to continue the fight. Radnofsky says the speed and persistence of the litigation suggest that the administration intends to pursue these cases aggressively. She also mentions an investigation in Alaska that Trump discussed with the governor. More broadly, states are preparing for their voter rolls and election procedures to be scrutinized. Officials say they routinely remove ineligible registrations while trying not to disenfranchise eligible voters, whereas the administration has focused heavily on its claim that large numbers of ineligible people are registered and might vote.

Ossola and Radnofsky then examine Alaska’s close race involving Democratic incumbent Mary Peltola and Republican Dan S. Sullivan. The controversy centers on another candidate, Dan J. Sullivan Jr., whose similar name could confuse voters. The New York Times reported that the Peltola campaign allegedly recruited him to create that confusion. Peltola denies involvement, and Senate Democratic campaign organizations say they were not involved. They also argue that Republicans have a history of recruiting or supporting candidates with similar names. Dan J. Sullivan Jr. told The Wall Street Journal that nobody put him up to running. The Trump administration refiled its challenge to Alaska’s election certification after the Times report, although its underlying legal arguments stayed broadly the same. Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, and state-court litigation resulted in the ballot identifying Dan S. Sullivan as the incumbent senator while identifying Dan J. Sullivan Jr. as neither an incumbent nor a senator. The Justice Department is suing to block certification if it can be shown that the second candidate’s presence cost Sullivan the election. Its position is that votes cast for Dan J. Sullivan Jr. should effectively be redistributed to the senator—an early federal intervention Radnofsky describes as largely unprecedented.

Ossola asks how states are preparing for federal involvement at polling places. Radnofsky says the Justice Department is sending election monitors to several states, but state officials who have received notifications generally expect the monitors to behave normally rather than interfere with voting or question voters. States, especially Democratic-led states but not only those, have prepared contingency plans for a wide range of worst-case scenarios, including legal briefs that could be filed around Election Day. A March 2025 executive order also expanded the Department of Homeland Security’s role in checking voter eligibility by giving the federal government access to an immigration database that could be used to assess citizenship. Radnofsky says officials have questioned the accuracy of the data and warns that disputes could become especially serious when federal officials challenge a state’s results. The Constitution traditionally leaves election administration to the states, subject to federal laws enacted by Congress, and does not expressly give the executive branch a direct election-administration role. The administration argues it can enforce federal laws in ways that would give it a larger role, putting the issue into legally unsettled territory. The administration also sought, through an executive order, to restrict mail-in ballots by giving the Postal Service a greater role in screening ballots before they moved to or from voters. The Supreme Court blocked that part of the order, so it is not in effect. State officials say mail voting is generally proceeding normally, although some states have reported delays; voters worried about timely delivery are advised to use a ballot drop box.

Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice tells the program that the administration’s actions have not made her primarily concerned that the mechanics of voting will change. Her greater concern is that the “furor,” interference efforts, and public claims about election problems will shake confidence. She expects partisans and disruptors could claim after the election that irregularities or fraud occurred, then use those claims to justify radical actions or undermine the results. Weiser emphasizes that elections remain run by state and local authorities, not the federal government. She says the federal government has not legally changed the voting process, courts have rejected each of the administration’s attempts discussed in the episode, and tens of millions of Americans have already voted without incident. She therefore says voters should feel able to vote safely and confidently. Her practical advice is to check registration before going to the polls and determine whether the state allows same-day registration or still has an open registration deadline. Anyone still in line when the polling place closes has the right to vote and should not leave. If a properly eligible voter has been removed from the rolls, that voter can request a provisional ballot, which will be reviewed afterward, and can later find out whether it was counted. Weiser advises calling 866-OUR-VOTE if eligibility is questioned or someone disrupts the polling place, and says voters should not leave Election Day without casting a ballot.