As Americans prepared to vote in the 2026 midterm elections, local election officials and voting-rights groups were watching several potential sources of disruption. A ProPublica investigation outlined five areas of concern: possible federal law-enforcement activity near polling places, challenges to voters identified as potential noncitizens, changes to voting procedures and equipment, physical and cyber threats, and legal challenges after ballots are cast. The report said courts had blocked many of the Trump administration’s efforts to expand federal control over elections, but officials remained concerned that continued pressure could weaken public confidence.
ProPublica described an episode in Leon County, Florida, where two marked Customs and Border Protection vehicles parked outside a busy early-voting location. County election supervisor Mark Earley initially feared federal agents might be conducting enforcement activity near voters. He later learned that the agents had stopped because they mistakenly believed they could vote there while traveling out of state, but they were not registered in the county and did not vote. The Department of Homeland Security told ProPublica that ICE was not planning operations targeting polling locations and said enforcement at a polling place would be limited to a safety threat. The article also noted legal restrictions on federal law-enforcement activity near polling places.
The administration’s efforts to identify suspected noncitizen voters have raised concerns about eligible citizens being wrongly flagged or removed from voter rolls. The Justice Department sought to stop California from counting mail ballots from more than 20,000 voters it described as likely noncitizens. California disputed the list’s reliability. A Los Angeles County sample review found that some people on the list were not registered in the county or had never voted, while some registration forms indicated that the voters were born in the United States. Washington state officials also challenged a federal list of 400 names, saying it included citizens, people who were not registered and duplicate entries.
The report also examined state-level voting rules that could make it harder for ballots to be counted. In North Carolina, new mail-ballot procedures require voters to seal two envelopes, and the article cited reporting that ballot rejections increased when voters failed to complete the additional step. In Texas, reductions in polling locations could contribute to longer lines and confusion. Election officials were also concerned about cyberattacks, physical threats and false alarms at vote-counting sites. ProPublica recalled that false bomb threats disrupted counting locations in several states during the 2024 election, although those disruptions were brief.
Election lawyers were concerned that the administration’s pre-election actions could be followed by aggressive challenges after the results are known. The Justice Department sued Alaska seeking to block certification of the Senate result if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan lost, arguing that another candidate with the same name could confuse voters. A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit. ProPublica noted that federal intervention in an active election is unusual and differs from the more typical process in which losing candidates challenge results in state court after voting ends. The election’s integrity will depend on officials administering voting and counting under the law and on political actors respecting the judicial process.