Off to the Races
By Justin Riemer, President, USGI, and Marshal Trigg, Junior Counsel, USGI
It’s not even February, and as we predicted in the last edition of the Grant Report, 2026 is already shaping up to be an eventful year in election law litigation.
Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections expanded candidate standing in a pretty categorical way, exceeding the expectations of many court observers. The Court held that candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules governing how votes in their elections are counted, even without showing that the challenged rule is likely to change the outcome or otherwise harm their electoral prospects. In practical terms, Bost lowers the threshold for pre-election challenges and invites a broader class of candidate-initiated suits.
Although election administrators will understandably bemoan the likelihood of facing more lawsuits, we believe Bost will prove to be a net positive for our elections system. It’s a strange state of affairs when no one has recourse to challenge an unlawful rule until after an election, effectively insulating everything from questionably legal procedures to outright and blatant illegal ones from meaningful pre-election review. The status quo ante in at least some federal circuits forced courts into the far messier posture of issuing post hoc remedies in a compressed timeline, often after they offer meaningful relief. Bost restores a measure of doctrinal coherence by recognizing that exposure to an allegedly unlawful vote-counting rule is itself a cognizable injury for candidates. As the Court reasoned, such violations threaten to undermine even a winner’s political legitimacy.
Finally, it’s worth noting that while only five justices subscribed to the broader standing holding, seven, including Justice Kagan, concurred in judgment by determining that Bost suffered a classic “pocketbook” injury. As a practical matter, most candidates challenging an election rule will be able to prove the same.
Also last week, federal courts in Oregon and California ruled on the Justice Department’s effort to compel states to produce comprehensive, unredacted voter-registration data. In California, a district court dismissed DOJ’s suit seeking access to the state’s unredacted voter file, as well as other records. In Oregon, the court signaled it intends to dismiss a parallel effort after a hearing, with a written ruling expected.
There are certainly legitimate policy and legal questions surrounding the federal government’s current effort to access state voter-registration data, and reasonable minds can differ on statutory interpretation, the balance between privacy and federal enforcement authority, and so forth. But the California opinion at least is undermined by its own indulgence.
For example, the court anchors its introduction in broad invocations about the fragility of the “American experiment in democracy,” the historical sacrifices of marginalized communities, and the notion that the Executive seeks to “abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots.” Not merely prefatory, these sorts of ideological gestures reappear in the body and conclusion of the opinion (e.g., warning of “the taking of democracy”).
Even to the extent one may find the DOJ voter data collection an invidious development, it doesn’t follow naturally that the federal government is trying to prevent eligible voters from voting or that they don’t have a legal right to obtain this information. Yet, on the former, the court says just that without explanation and without the benefit of any discovery having occurred in the case. Treating this conclusion as a simple, judicially noticeable inference is telling and reflects a familiar prejudice coloring debates over list maintenance. The court couldn’t even acknowledge that the NVRA’s public disclosure provision has been successfully used time and again to enforce federal list maintenance obligations, instead confining legitimate uses to “voting rights advocates” who use the provision for “increasing the number of eligible voters.” Nor did the court meaningfully confront the case’s novel question that existing caselaw addresses redactions only in disclosures to public requesters, not to the federal government.
One thing is for certain: the California and Oregon rulings are far from the courts’ last word on the DOJ requests. Those cheering the rulings should be weary when DOJ inevitably appeals them and circuit courts look more soberly at the relevant technical legal issues, or when other district courts in the numerous other DOJ suits come out the other way.
Between Bost’s expansion of candidate standing and the DOJ’s voter file blitz, 2026 is going to be a docket buster.
Alabama
Alabama House Republicans began the new legislative session passing a bill that would mandate post-election audits. If enacted, this bill will require probate judges in each county to conduct an audit of a precinct randomly selected by the county canvassing board.
Arizona
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Member Thomas Galvin joined The Gaggle Podcast to discuss how the county is preparing for the 2026 elections.
Arkansas
State lawmakers are working to amend the rules that govern poll watchers before the March Primary Election. The changes would clearly define the role of poll watchers, alter where they can stand within the polling site, and what they can observe.
A state court has sentenced a Cuban national to five years in prison after she pleaded guilty to perjury and voter fraud charges.
California
Clint Curtis, the Shasta County Registrar of Voters, told reporters that he participated in a polygraph test to demonstrate to voters that he did not tamper with the 2024 election. Curtis hopes that this examination will demonstrate to county voters that elections are safe and secure. Curtis has not publicly provided physical documentation of the results of the polygraph.
Iowa
Knox County voters will have the opportunity to view the new voting machines that are being utilized starting this year. Scott Erickson, the County Clerk, hopes that the demonstrations will encourage people to vote as they will know how to operate the new machines.
These new machines replace machines that are 20 years old and will have enhanced security features. Voters will now be presented with a paper ballot to ensure the accuracy of their vote. This ballot will then be inserted into an electronic tabulator.
Maine
Secretary of State Bellows has referred her office’s investigation into how 250 absentee ballots were delivered to a private citizen in an Amazon box to the State Attorney General’s office. The Attorney General’s office is the agency designated to bring enforcement actions against any election law violations.
Maryland
The Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Committee has sent a new Congressional district map to Governor Wes Moore that would likely result in eliminate the one Republican-held congressional seat in the state. If approved by Governor Moore, the map will go the Maryland General Assembly for approval, although Senate President Bill Ferguson has opposed the Governor’s redistricting push.
Michigan
Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini, who is running to be Michigan’s next Secretary of State, has found 14 noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls. These 14 individuals were identified during Forlini’s four-month audit of the jury pool for the 16th Circuit Court, which found 239 noncitizens within the jury pool.
Montana
The Secretary of State’s Office has announced that 23 non-citizens were found to be registered to vote. These individuals were identified through the federal government’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
New Jersey
Two foreign nationals, Muhammad Muzammal and Muhammad Shakeel, have been indicted for fraudulently voting in the 2020 and 2021 elections. In addition to voting, the individuals are accused of lying on their voter registration application that they are U.S. Citizens and on applications for U.S. Citizenship that they never registered to vote.
North Carolina
Columbus County voters will not have the opportunity to vote on Sundays after the State Board of Elections rejected the plan to authorize it.
Oregon
Oregon may cancel up to 800,000 inactive voter registrations as Secretary of State Tobias Read has started to clean up the state’s voter rolls. The state will begin with cancelling the registration for approximately 160,000 voters who have been classified as inactive since 2017.
Pennsylvania
Luzerne County Council narrowly voted 6-5 to introduce an ordinance aimed to protect poll workers from being harassed and intimidated while conducting official election business.
Tennessee
Tennessee election officials have provided the federal government with their state voter file following the DOJ’s request. State leaders nevertheless declined to sign a proposed memorandum of understanding with DOJ that would have mandated cancelling the registration of voters flagged by the federal review as ineligible within 45 days, citing concerns that such a deadline would conflict with the National Voter Registration Act.
Texas
The Secretary of State’s office provided DOJ with their state voter file. Under a Memorandum of Understanding, Texas officials will have 45 days from receiving a report from the DOJ to correct any issues found within the voter rolls.
The Democratic National Committee sent a letter to Secretary of State Jane Nelson arguing that this agreement violates two provisions of the National Voter Registration Act and threatened legal action if Texas follows through this agreement.
Utah
The DNC also sent a nearly identical letter to Utah officials threatening legal action if the state enters into an agreement with the DOJ.
Virginia
Voters will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to the state constitution that will authorize the legislature to redraw its congressional districts. This special election comes after both chambers voted along party lines to authorize this amendment.
Wisconsin
Democrats in the state legislature have introduced a slew of election-related legislation. The legislation ranges from automatic voter registration, early canvassing of absentee ballots, and shortening the residency requirement to vote in the state.
Alaska
Smith v. Alaska, No. 2AN-23-08873CR (Alaska Super. Ct., 3d Jud. Dist., Anchorage)
On January 15, a state appeals court heard arguments in the case of a defendant charged with felony voter misconduct. Smith, an Alaskan resident born in American Samoa, was arrested after winning election to a regional school board in 2023. Smith claims she relied on erroneous information from local election officials when she identified herself as a U.S. citizen on voter registration forms.
Arkansas
Norris v. Griffin, No. 5:26-cv-05005 (W.D. Ark.)
On January 8, a Republican candidate filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Act 728, a state election law that bars nonvoters from remaining within 100 feet of a polling place during voting hours.
California
United States v. Weber, No. 2:25-cv-09149 (C.D. Cal.)
On January 15, a federal court dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit seeking access to California’s unredacted voter registration records.
Illinois
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 1:22-cv-02754 (N.D. Ill.)
In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political candidates have Article III standing to bring pre-election legal challenges to election rules. Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) filed three amicus briefs in this case.
Mississippi
Republican National Committee v. Watson, No. 1:24-cv-00025 (S.D. Miss.)
On January 9, several groups filed amicus briefs in support of Mississippi’s argument that it can count ballots arriving after Election Day.
New Hampshire
Robertson v. Scanlan, No. 218-2025-CV-00951 (N.H. Super. Ct. Rockingham Cnty.)
On January 9, plaintiffs appealed a trial court’s dismissal of their challenge to New Hampshire’s absentee voter ID law to the state Supreme Court.
New York
Williams v. Board of Elections of the State of New York, No. 164002/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.)
On January 21, a state judge ruled that a GOP-held House district was unconstitutionally configured and ordered the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission to create a new map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
North Carolina
Williams v. Hall, No. 23-CV-1057; N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger, No. 23-CV-1104 (M.D.N.C.)
On January 16, plaintiffs withdrew their remaining challenges to North Carolina’s 2025 congressional map.
Oregon
United States v. Oregon, No. 6:25-cv-01666 (D. Or.)
On January 14, a federal court tentatively ruled that the State of Oregon is not required to disclose unredacted voter registration information to the federal government. A written opinion is expected to follow.
Pennsylvania
United States v. Laiss, No. 5:25-cr-00386 (E.D. Penn.)
On January 12, a federal court rejected a defendant’s attempt to have his federal double-voting and voter fraud indictment dismissed on the ground that a broad presidential pardon issued by President Donald Trump covered his alleged conduct.
Texas
LULAC v. Abbott, No. 3:21-cv-00259 (W.D. Tex.)
On January 13, Texas filed a jurisdictional statement asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a three-judge panel ruling that struck down its congressional map.
Virginia
United States v. Beals, No. 3:26-cv-00042 (E.D. Va.)
On January 16, the Department of Justice sued Virginia for refusing to provide unredacted voter registration records.
Washington
Washington v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00602 (W.D. Wash.)
On January 9, a federal court granted in part and denied in part competing motions on summary judgment and dismissal in a case challenging President Trump’s executive order on election integrity, concluding that plaintiffs have standing and valid causes of action for several claims, and that core provisions of the order violate the Constitution’s separation of powers by infringing upon authority reserved to states and Congress. The court permanently enjoined enforcement of several provisions of the order.
The New York Times reports that an extensive review of millions of voter records using the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) tool—expanded under the Trump administration to check citizenship status on voter rolls—has so far found no evidence of widespread illegal voting by noncitizens, although DHS has referred around 10,000 cases of potential noncitizens registered to vote to its investigations unit.
A new nonpartisan initiative called the Election Security Exchange has officially launched as a centralized resource hub to help election officials strengthen the security and resilience of election administration amid evolving threats.
As Congress continues debating the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, key House Republican leaders have signaled plans to introduce revisions that would strengthen the bill’s provisions, such as adding a photographic voter ID requirement alongside the existing proof-of-citizenship mandate. The SAVE Act, which passed the House in April 2025 but has stalled in the Senate, would amend the National Voter Registration Act to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship before individuals can register to vote in federal elections.
Nicolee Ambrose argues that Maryland’s election system suffers from systemic failures in voter-roll maintenance and offers various recommendations to improve list maintenance and require voter ID.
A group of 21 computer science experts concludes that all current internet voting systems are fundamentally insecure and unsuitable for use in public elections. They explain that internet voting suffers from basic vulnerabilities that cannot be fixed with existing technology: malware on voters’ devices can alter cast votes, servers can be hacked to change results without detection, and election office systems are equally vulnerable to attack. The experts conclude that no known or foreseeable technological solution can make internet voting secure.
This analysis by the Election Integrity Network states that precinct-based in-person voting is a foundational pillar of secure elections and offers inherent safeguards that are difficult or impossible to replicate in other voting modalities.
The Grant Institute has potential openings for junior level attorneys and others interested in the study of election administration and voting issues. Interested candidates should please email their resume to info@grantdemocracy.org.