As the 2026 midterm elections approach, a concerning development is unfolding across the United States: numerous candidates who have previously questioned the validity of election results are now running for crucial statewide offices that would give them direct authority over future voting procedures. This trend, particularly prevalent in presidential swing states, has prompted an in-depth analysis from States United Action, a non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding the electoral process. Their findings reveal a significant number of individuals campaigning on platforms that undermine confidence in democratic elections, raising serious questions about the future of free and fair voting in America.

The Critical Role of Election-Denying Candidates in the 2026 Midterms

In the vibrant political landscape of May 2026, amid the fervent discussions surrounding unprecedented mid-decade redistricting and shifting presidential approval ratings, a critical electoral narrative is emerging with profound implications for the 2028 elections and beyond. A recent, exclusive analysis by States United Action, shared with NPR, reveals that in twenty-three states, including five pivotal presidential battlegrounds, candidates who have publicly challenged past election outcomes are actively campaigning for offices that will directly oversee the certification of future elections. This non-profit organization, committed to preserving the integrity of elections, has been diligently tracking candidates' stances on election validity since 2022, providing invaluable insights into this pressing issue.

Joanna Lydgate, the CEO of States United Action, emphasized the organization's primary objective: to furnish voters with precise information, enabling them to comprehend these candidates' core beliefs and their commitment to free and equitable elections within the nation. This year, thirty-nine states are conducting elections for various statewide positions that directly interact with the electoral process. These roles encompass secretary of state or governor, which, depending on the state's specific regulations, play a crucial part in managing or certifying elections. Additionally, attorney general positions, responsible for interpreting and enforcing election laws, are also on the ballot.

The analysis conducted by States United has identified at least fifty-three candidates who deny election results, actively vying for these critical positions during the current midterm cycle. To categorize candidates as election-deniers, the organization employs a rigorous set of criteria, including whether they have falsely asserted that a former president was the legitimate victor in a past election or if they have supported efforts to subvert election outcomes after exhaustive audits and legal challenges have been concluded. In most states, the secretary of state holds the most direct responsibility for the administration of elections. These typically bureaucratic roles gained unprecedented significance in 2020, as officials from both major parties faced immense pressure from influential figures to manipulate election results.

Illustrative instances include Georgia's Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, who famously resisted demands to "discover" a specific number of votes. Similarly, in Michigan, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson endured armed demonstrators outside her residence in the weeks following the conclusion of voting. Both of these crucial swing states will elect new secretaries of state and governors this year, and both currently feature candidates who have questioned the integrity of past election results. In Arizona, another key presidential battleground, individuals who deny election results are running for all three vital statewide positions, according to States United's comprehensive analysis. In 2020, Arizona's then-Republican governor, Doug Ducey, faced considerable pressure to interfere with the certification process but ultimately refused to do so. However, this year, the leading contender for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Arizona, Andy Biggs, voted against certifying those election results during his tenure in the U.S. House, and even directly contacted a pivotal state lawmaker at the time to explore alternative methods of disrupting the process.

Lydgate reiterated the importance of electing officials who uphold the integrity of the system, stating, "We've witnessed state officials from both sides of the political spectrum bravely resist attempts to interfere with elections and their results in the past. We are confident they will continue to do so. Nevertheless, it is paramount that we elect individuals who genuinely believe in our system and in the principles of free and fair elections." Compared to previous electoral cycles, the number of election deniers participating in statewide races this year has actually decreased. Lydgate attributes this decline to state-level candidates recognizing that it is an "unfavorable campaign strategy" in states with highly competitive races in November. She noted, "Voters in America generally do not favor election denial, and candidates who have championed that platform have historically faced significant repercussions." Following the 2022 midterms, an NPR analysis revealed that Republican secretary of state candidates who rejected the 2020 election results generally underperformed compared to other GOP candidates in competitive states. A separate analysis by States United estimated that the penalty for election denial amounted to approximately a three-percentage-point deduction.

However, candidates campaigning in states where a former president secured a substantial victory, or in crowded primaries where they seek endorsement from influential political figures, are clearly undeterred by this data. Brendan Fischer, who directs research into efforts to undermine elections at the Campaign Legal Center, observes the emergence of a robust "election denial infrastructure" since 2020. This infrastructure has proven highly effective in swaying candidates and lawmakers towards embracing unfounded theories about voting and crafting policy responses based on such misinformation. Fischer concludes, "The election denier movement still represents a minuscule fraction of the nation. Yet, it constitutes an energized and influential force within Republican politics. It is an organized interest group that Republican candidates and lawmakers must, to some extent, accommodate."

This political phenomenon underscores a critical challenge to democratic processes, highlighting the necessity for vigilant civic engagement and a robust defense of electoral integrity. The proliferation of candidates who question fundamental election results threatens to erode public trust and destabilize future democratic outcomes. It serves as a potent reminder that the bedrock principles of democracy—fairness, transparency, and the acceptance of legitimate results—are not to be taken for granted and require continuous safeguarding by informed citizens and dedicated public servants. The ongoing efforts by organizations like States United Action are crucial in providing the necessary data and awareness for voters to make informed decisions that protect the sanctity of their vote.