Democracy Maps
Forecasting Democracy: Expected Changes to Voting and Election Policies in 2026
As the midterm elections approach, 2026 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for voting rights and election policy. The control of both houses of Congress will be decided in November, along with thousands of state legislative offices and officials who run elections.
While the midterms will certainly be consequential for our democracy, state legislatures as well as the federal government will continue to shape voting and election policy leading up to November. This brief from MAP’s Democracy Program forecasts trends and potential shifts in the voting and election policy landscape in 2026.
Our policy team will continue to follow these trends and more in real time through our Democracy Maps, which track more than 50 policies related to elections and voting, and provide state-by-state details for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Potential Changes at the Federal Level
One year into the new presidential administration, there have been dramatic shifts in election policy, even without Congress passing any significant legislation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been almost entirely remade, with reports indicating only three lawyers remained in the Voting division as of last year and has now shifted its focus from protecting voting rights to pursuing false claims of voter fraud. The President’s executive order on elections issued in March 2025 has also had a wide-ranging impact on state policy, despite many of its provisions being blocked by the courts.
While the administration’s attempts to impose proof of citizenship requirements nationwide and force states to roll back mail ballot deadline grace periods have been put on hold, the executive order has inspired a wave of copycat state and federal legislation to enact these restrictive policies.
Unprecedented Efforts by the DOJ to Obtain State Voter Rolls
As part of the overhaul of the Department of Justice (DOJ), particularly within the Civil Rights and Voting divisions, the DOJ in mid-2025 began a campaign to demand access to states’ voter rolls. These demands encompass sensitive information such as Social Security numbers and represent an effort to usurp the traditional roles of states in election administration and instead build a federal voter database. The administration has made clear that it intends to use such a database to attempt to force states to remove voters from the rolls based on unreliable information.
As of this writing, the DOJ has demanded voter data from almost all 50 states, although most states have initially refused these requests. Subsequently, the federal government has sued 24 of these states, and litigation is ongoing across the country.
Renewed Push for Proof of Citizenship Requirements
While the President’s executive order on elections and its provisions attempting to impose nationwide proof of citizenship requirements have been blocked by the courts, Congressional Republicans have recently renewed their push to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in this year’s session.
The SAVE Act was previously passed by the U.S. House in April 2025 but subsequently stalled in the Senate. The SAVE Act’s proof of citizenship requirements would create significant barriers to voting, as many otherwise eligible voters lack access to documents to prove citizenship. These requirements would disproportionately impact marginalized communities and create immense administrative and financial burdens on election officials while also disrupting current registration systems.
Supreme Court Cases Could Reshape the Policy Landscape
The U.S Supreme Court is slated to issue two major rulings in the coming months that could have major impacts on the midterm elections. The most consequential is Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which has already been substantially weakened by past court decisions. Section 2 of the VRA broadly applies to prohibit racially gerrymandered legislative districts and has long been the main mechanism through which advocates can challenge these gerrymanders. If the court sides with the plaintiffs in the case, it would be extremely difficult for advocates to challenge these racial gerrymanders in the future, or for courts to order states to remedy violations. In conjunction with the unprecedented push for mid-decade redistricting across the country, a further weakening of the VRA could radically transform the makeup of congressional and state legislative districts, particularly in the South.
The court is also scheduled to hear Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case originating from Mississippi which seeks to void the state’s mail ballot grace period, which allows mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted for a specified time after Election Day. If the Court disallows these grace periods, the laws in 19 states and D.C. will be invalidated, impacting thousands of voters this November.
Potential State Level Policy Changes
As has been the case since the 2020 election, the diverging dynamic between states in terms of elections and voting policy continues to sharpen. We can expect Republican-controlled states to follow the lead of the administration in Washington and seek further restrictions on voting, while Democrat-controlled states fight against the administration and attempt to expand access for eligible voters.
Continued Focus on Proof of Citizenship Requirements
Documentary proof of citizenship laws, which require voters to present documents such as birth certificates in order to register to vote, continue to be a focus for policymakers at the state level. While most of the proof of citizenship bills were defeated in the 2025 legislative session, Wyoming joined Louisiana and New Hampshire as states that have enacted these requirements in recent years.
Lawmakers in Florida, Missouri and Utah are prioritizing advancing these restrictive policies in this legislative session, with the bill in Utah already advancing out of committee as of this writing.
Restrictions on Mail Voting
As with proof of citizenship requirements, state legislatures have been emboldened by the actions of the federal government to pursue additional restrictions on mail voting, which continues to be a focus of misinformation campaigns. In 2025, four states repealed their mail ballot grace periods, with Ohio being the most recent to do so just prior to the end of the year. With the impending Supreme Court case on this issue, which the Ohio governor invoked to justify his signing of the bill, additional states can be expected to pursue rolling back their grace periods.
In addition to attacking ballot deadlines, we can expect to see states pursue other restrictions on mail voting, such as banning drop boxes, requiring an excuse to vote by mail, and creating stricter ID requirements for mail voting. As of this writing, legislation to restrict mail voting has already been introduced in at least a dozen states.
State Voting Rights Acts Continue to Gain Momentum
As federal protections continue to weaken and the Supreme Court threatens to further limit the federal VRA, states have increasingly pursued their own voting rights acts to preserve these protections. These state level voting rights acts are typically modeled after the federal VRA and provide tools to fight voter suppression, protect against intimidation, and require local jurisdictions to receive clearance from the state before implementing changes that could result in discrimination.
Since 2020, five states have enacted their own voting rights acts, with Colorado being the most recent last year. Already in 2026, at least six states (Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey and Vermont) have introduced legislation to implement state level voting rights acts for the first time, with Maryland’s bill already gaining early momentum.
States to Watch
With almost every state in legislative session this year and midterm elections occurring in every state, here are some key states to watch:
Arizona
A continued flash point for debates over election policy, Arizona will see several competitive races in 2026, including for Governor and Secretary of State. The incumbent governor has been able to hold off a litany of restrictive voting bills passed by the legislature in recent years, including proposals to limit mail voting, ban drop boxes, and repeal the state’s permanent early voting list.
In the face of likely vetoes, the legislature is already advancing a referred ballot measure this year that would require early ballots to be returned before election day, eliminate the permanent absentee voting list, and require proof of citizenship to receive a mail ballot. If passed by the legislature, the measure will go to voters in November.
Pennsylvania
The control of both chambers of the Pennsylvania legislature will be decided this November, with each party currently controlling one chamber. This split has resulted in a lack of any significant election legislation being passed in recent years, such as repeated failed proposals to allow the pre-processing of absentee ballots, which could quickly change if one party controls both chambers.
Pennsylvania has also been a focal point for election related litigation in recent years, and that is continuing into 2026, with the DOJ suing the state for access to its voter rolls, and long pending litigation over ballot curing requirements still being debated by the state supreme court.
Virginia
Virginia’s state government is currently controlled by a narrow democratic trifecta, which has allowed the passage of expansive legislation in recent years. The legislature is currently prioritizing rights restoration reform, seeking to undo the state’s current system which is one of the most restrictive in the country. The legislature is advancing a ballot measure on this topic to go to voters in November, along with an anticipated reproductive freedom measure. In addition, the state is also a target of DOJ litigation to obtain voter rolls.
Wisconsin
Democrats in Wisconsin will seek to capitalize on a recent state supreme court decision that required fair legislative maps in the state and take control of the legislature for the first time since 2008. The current governor, who has vetoed multiple restrictive policies passed by the legislature in recent years, is not running for reelection, and the state will elect a new governor in November. In the meantime, the Republican-controlled legislature continues to seek an internal compromise that would allow them to pass a long-debated law to allow the pre-processing of absentee ballots.
The 2026 midterm elections will be held during a time of unprecedented pressure from the federal government on state election systems. The combination of DOJ demands for voter rolls, lack of federal protections, and impending Supreme Court decisions create a challenging environment for voters and election officials alike.
In terms of Congress, historical precedent would suggest that the Democrats have a strong chance of regaining control of the House of Representatives. At the same time, state elections across the country will decide who controls election policy and who will be in charge of supervising elections in 2028.
