Why the 26 secretary of state races this November matter more than they did before Trump’s drive to assert federal authority over elections

From Alaska to Florida, there once was an important job in government that most Americans rarely thought about: the secretary of state.

That changed after the 2020 presidential election, when secretaries of state in places such as Arizona, Georgia and Michigan were thrust into battles over election results, certification and false claims of widespread fraud.

In most states, the secretary of state serves as the chief election official, although the precise powers of the office vary. These officials can oversee voter registration, issue guidance to local election administrators, supervise election procedures and, in many states, participate in certifying results.

In the 2022 midterms, some who rejected or sought to overturn the 2020 election ran for these offices across the country.

Of the 13 election-denying candidates for secretary of state who reached the 2022 general election, only three won.

But the struggle over who controls American elections did not disappear. Now, in 2026, it has entered a different phase. It’s a struggle over the constitutionally established power given to states, not the federal government, to run elections. And secretaries of state are key players in this conflict.

There are secretary of state contests in 26 states this November.

The United States is unusual in how it selects the officials who administer elections.

Unlike most democracies, many American chief election officials are chosen through explicitly partisan processes, including partisan elections and political appointments. Yet studies have found that Democratic and Republican election officials generally administer elections impartially despite their party affiliations.

These once-obscure offices wield considerable influence.

A secretary of state cannot simply change the result of an election. But depending on state law, the office can have substantial authority over elections before, during and after voting. Secretaries of state may oversee voter registration and voting systems, establish procedures for local election officials, participate in election certification and become involved in disputes over ballot access and election administration.

States United Democracy Center, which describes itself as a “nonpartisan organization advancing free, fair, and secure elections,” defines an “election denier” secretary of state as someone who spread the false claim that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, refused to certify its legitimate results or attempted to overturn them.

The number of secretary of state candidates who deny the legitimacy of the 2020 election has declined since the last midterm, from 13 candidates in 2022 to seven in 2026.

Those declines are notable. But they do not mean disputes over election administration are receding.

U.S. election administration is spread across states, which have primary responsibility for running elections, while Congress can set or alter rules for federal elections.

In practice, state and local officials carry out most of the day-to-day work, including voter registration, operating polling places and counting ballots.

The Trump administration has sought to expand the federal government’s role in several of those areas.

The Justice Department has demanded statewide voter registration lists as part of an effort to identify potentially ineligible registrations. By April 2026, the department said it had sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for failing to provide those records, arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 gives the attorney general authority to obtain and inspect them.

Some states resisted the demands, while others complied. By October 2026, 18 Republican-led states had provided voter information to the federal government. By late summer, federal courts had dismissed DOJ voter list cases against more than 20 states, although appeals remained pending in several of them.

Then, on Oct. 9, 2026, a federal judge went further, striking down the DOJ’s nationwide voter list collection policy itself.

The court ruled that the department lacked authority to collect state voter files, compare them with federal citizenship databases and use those comparisons to press states to remove voters deemed potentially ineligible. The judge concluded that the policy violated federal law and intruded on authority Congress had left with the states.

The administration has gone beyond requesting state voter records.

In March 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport, from people registering through the federal voter registration form. The administration said the measure was intended to strengthen election integrity and prevent noncitizens from registering or voting.

A federal court permanently blocked that requirement on Oct. 31, 2025, ruling that the president lacked authority to unilaterally change federal election procedures because the Constitution assigns that responsibility to Congress and the states.

The administration has also unsuccessfully pressed Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.

Trump issued another election-related executive order in March 2026. It directed the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Social Security Administration, to create state-by-state lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote. It also sought changes in how the Postal Service handles mail and absentee ballots. The White House said the order was designed to enhance election integrity.

In June 2026, a federal court struck down key portions of the order in a lawsuit brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia, blocking its citizenship-list and mail-ballot provisions from taking effect in those jurisdictions during the 2026 elections. In August, however, the Supreme Court stayed that ruling while the litigation continued and did not decide whether the executive order itself was lawful.

The Postal Service later issued a rule requiring states to submit voter information and meet new mail-ballot design and tracking requirements. On Sept. 14, the Supreme Court refused to let the rule take effect for the 2026 elections, leaving a nationwide injunction in place.

Collectively, these federal initiatives change the significance of secretary of state races.

Voters in 2026 are choosing state officials who may soon have to decide how their states respond to Washington’s efforts to assert authority over state-run elections.

Should a state provide the federal government with complete voter files containing sensitive information? How should state election officials respond to federally created citizenship databases? What happens when a presidential directive conflicts with state election law – or when courts intervene?

The answers may differ dramatically from state to state.

The officials elected in 2026 will likely be called upon to respond to legal challenges to voter eligibility, election procedures and results, and, in some states, to defend or certify contested outcomes.

For much of American history, that system functioned largely outside the national political spotlight.

The 2026 contests suggest that secretaries of state increasingly stand at the center of a growing conflict over how election authority should be divided between states and the federal government. Who holds these once-obscure offices may therefore matter well beyond the 2026 midterms – and into the 2028 presidential election.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Thom Reilly, Arizona State University

Thom Reilly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.