As the November midterm elections approach, legal battles over election management are taking place across the United States. Lawyers are contesting various issues, including the federal government’s access to state voter lists. A federal judge recently rejected the Justice Department’s request for Massachusetts to provide its voter data, one of 30 similar cases in the country. Additional disputes involve mail-in voting and identification requirements. According to Bob Bauer, an expert in election law, these challenges might not drastically alter the midterms, but they occur amid widespread skepticism regarding U.S. elections.
Bauer, who has advised Presidents Biden, Obama, and Clinton and co-leads the Bipartisan American Election Project, highlighted the surge in lawsuits concerning election administration. He noted the unique conflict over executive authority in setting federal election rules. The Constitution assigns election administration to states unless Congress intervenes, with no mention of presidential authority. President Trump has tested these boundaries through Executive Orders in March 2025 and 2026, leading to significant litigation.
A notable case before the Supreme Court involves the postmark voting rule, questioning whether states can accept ballots postmarked by Election Day but counted later. Bauer believes the voter roll cases could significantly impact the elections, as they challenge the federal government’s attempt to establish a national voter list, which he views as unconstitutional. The SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voters, remains stalled in the Senate, with little indication of progress.
States can counter federal intervention by bringing claims to court, with both state and occasionally federal courts overseeing election disputes. Throughout the electoral process, state laws primarily govern election rules. Bauer explained that the judiciary offers multiple avenues for states to contest federal claims or attempts to undermine election outcomes.
While the administration has sought rapid resolutions through the emergency docket, the Supreme Court has not always supported these efforts. Despite its conservative leaning, the court has sometimes ruled against the administration, as seen in tariff cases. Bauer noted that the court’s conservative stance does not automatically align with supporting Trump, as some issues extend beyond traditional conservative boundaries.
Concerns persist about voter confusion and mistrust due to these legal challenges. Bauer emphasized that election administration has improved since 2000, with both Democratic and Republican officials working to enhance election processes. Mistakes are inevitable, but the focus remains on learning and correcting them. Civil society and the private sector often defend election officials, recognizing their work’s quality. Bauer concluded that reversing an election outcome is challenging, especially when results are decisive, making it unlikely for Trump to overturn significant Democratic victories.
Original Source: news.harvard.edu
