Could Trump Alter U.S. Voting Rules Before the 2026 Midterms?

As the United States approaches the 2026 midterm elections—set to renew all 435 House seats and one-third of the Senate—President Donald Trump's administration has signaled intentions to reshape federal election processes. With just under a year until the vote, Trump has proposed measures aimed at enhancing "election integrity," including executive orders targeting mail-in voting, electronic voting machines, and voter verification. However, these efforts collide with a foundational principle of American democracy: the primary authority over election administration rests with states, not the federal executive. While the proposals have sparked debate over potential voter access barriers, legal experts emphasize that constitutional limits and ongoing litigation will likely constrain their impact. This article examines the proposals, the legal landscape, and the broader implications for voters.

Trump's Proposed Changes: A Push for 'Honesty' in Elections

Trump's rhetoric on election reform has intensified since his January 2025 inauguration, framing the changes as essential to counter alleged fraud—a claim repeatedly debunked by courts and officials from both parties following the 2020 and 2024 elections. In August 2025, he announced plans for an executive order to "end mail-in ballots" and phase out voting machines nationwide, arguing they are "highly inaccurate" and prone to manipulation. The White House has described these as steps to "restore integrity," requiring voter ID, proof of citizenship for registration, and ensuring mail ballots arrive by Election Day to avoid federal funding cuts or Justice Department lawsuits.

Earlier in March 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14019, titled "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," which mandates federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to audit state voter rolls against immigration databases, subpoena records, and halt prior Biden-era initiatives promoting voting access. The order also proposes purging rolls of potential noncitizens and tying federal aid to states' adoption of stricter rules, such as banning undated or postmarked-after-Election-Day mail ballots.

Beyond executive action, the administration is encouraging state-level shifts. Trump has urged Republican governors to pursue "midterm gerrymandering"—redrawing congressional maps mid-decade to favor GOP candidates, as seen in Texas where a 2025 special session adjusted districts despite only 52% Republican vote share yielding 67% of seats. The Justice Department has sued states like North Carolina over voter roll maintenance and demanded data from 19 others to probe fraud claims.

Supporters, including White House spokesperson Harrison Fields, argue these measures prevent "cheating through lax laws" in states like California and New York, citing low fraud rates but emphasizing safeguards like voter ID—already required in 36 states. Critics, however, warn of suppression: Proof-of-citizenship requirements could disenfranchise naturalized immigrants, married women with name changes, and disaster survivors lacking documents, potentially affecting millions in diverse states.

The Constitutional Framework: States Hold the Reins

The U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) grants states the power to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner" of federal elections, with Congress able to override or alter those rules—but not the president unilaterally. This decentralized system, designed by the Framers to prevent federal overreach, means states handle voter registration, ballot design, polling sites, and certification, subject to federal baselines like the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and Help America Vote Act.

Federal authority is limited: Congress can enforce anti-discrimination via amendments (e.g., 14th, 15th, 19th), condition funding on compliance, or set uniform standards for accessibility and security. The president can influence through appointments—like at the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) or Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)—or by signing legislation, but executive orders cannot dictate state procedures. As UCLA law professor Richard Hasen notes, "The president has no constitutional authority over federal election administration."

Recent actions illustrate the boundaries. Parts of Trump's March order, including voter roll purges without due process, have been blocked by federal judges, echoing rulings against similar 2020 efforts. The Supreme Court, in cases like Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013), has upheld state primacy while allowing congressional overrides, but deferred to state courts on local law interpretations. With a 6-3 conservative majority, appeals could favor executive leeway, but timelines—potentially stretching into 2026—may delay implementation.

AspectState AuthorityFederal RoleVoter Registration & IDPrimary regulator; varies (e.g., 15 states no ID required)Minimum standards via HAVA; anti-discrimination enforcementMail-in BallotsSet rules (e.g., CA allows postmark by Election Day)Can condition grants on access but not ban outrightRedistrictingMid-decade in some states; court-reviewedVRA Section 2 challenges gerrymanders harming minoritiesVoter Roll MaintenanceHandles purges; must notify affected votersAudits via NVRA; DOJ lawsuits for non-compliance

Potential Impacts and Challenges: Access vs. Security

Proponents contend the changes bolster trust, pointing to CISA's paused election security work and a 2026 budget proposing further cuts—moves that could indirectly pressure states. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, has voiced concerns over federal "targeting" of officials, predicting safe 2026 elections but decrying unsupportive policies.

Opponents, including the ACLU and Fair Fight, argue the proposals echo voter suppression tactics, potentially purging eligible voters and complicating access for minorities, the elderly, and rural residents—groups that turned out at record levels in 2024. Implementing nationwide machine replacements or mail bans by November 2026 would be logistically daunting, costing billions and risking chaos, per experts like the Registrars of Voters Association. States like California, with Proposition 50 enabling Democratic-favorable redistricting, are already countering with voter-approved maps, prompting GOP lawsuits.

On X (formerly Twitter), discussions reflect polarization: Users like @EmeraldRobinson decry recent vote "shifts" as rigged, urging reforms, while @AJEnglish highlights state-federal tensions. Others, such as @RBReich, advocate grassroots mobilization to protect rights.

The Road to 2026: Safeguards & Uncertainties

While Trump's agenda could influence sympathetic states—potentially flipping competitive House races—widespread federal imposition faces steep hurdles. Bipartisan election officials, from Wisconsin's Ann Jacobs to Connecticut's Christopher Prue, affirm readiness to uphold state laws, warning of voter confusion from conflicting rules. Congress holds the ultimate override power, but with slim GOP majorities, partisan gridlock is likely.

As NPR's Michel Martin noted in discussions with experts like David A. Graham, the midterms represent a "pivotal moment" for democracy, where turnout—historically higher in opposition years—could counter any overreach. Legal battles will dominate headlines, but the decentralized system, bolstered by state courts and the VRA, provides a buffer. For voters, the message from officials across the aisle is clear: Prepare, participate, and persist. The 2026 elections, like those before, will test not just policy but the resilience of America's electoral framework.