1

Sources of Panic, 2026 Edition

Gerrymandering

Mid-decade maps in nine states

AI campaigning

$137 million in A.I.-generated ads

Executive orders and mail voting

EO 14399 and the Postal Service rule

Voter data requests

DOJ suits and DOJ v. California

Feds at the polls

Election officials, DOJ monitors, ICE

Seizure of ballots

Fulton County

Late counting

California and late-arriving mail ballots

Certification and seating

From Election Day to January 3

2

Before Election Day

​

• AI Campaigning
• Mail Ballot Challenges
• Requests for State Voter Registration Data

​

​

AI, Campaign Advertising, and the Information Ecosystem

64

The AI Disinformation Panic

63

Public Concern About A.I. and the 2026 Election

1

76%

concerned

“Concerned that misleading audio or video ‘deepfakes’ created using AI will impact the 2026 midterm elections” *

UC San Diego Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections · Sept. 1–9, 2026 · 5,016 adults, online (Forthright)

85%

very likely / likely

Political content “created by Artificial Intelligence will spread misleading information about the elections” *

NPR/PBS News/Marist · Mar. 2–4, 2026 · 1,591 adults

66% vs. 33%

very concerned: other people vs. you

“How concerned are you that AI-generated fake videos or audio of candidates, oftentimes called ‘deepfakes,’ could change how [other people vote / you vote] in this November’s election?”

AAPC Foundation · Sept. 14–22, 2026 · 1,568 likely voters (split sample)

84%

unacceptable

“Using an AI-generated voice that sounds like the candidate, used by their own campaign” (67% completely, 17% mostly)

AAPC Foundation · Sept. 14–22, 2026 · 1,568 likely voters (split sample)

47% vs. 11%

more concerned vs. more excited

“Thinking about the future impact of artificial intelligence, or AI, tools on how you get information, would you say you feel more excited, more concerned, or neither excited nor concerned?”

USAFacts/AP-NORC · July 29–Aug. 10, 2026 · 1,036 adults

9%

extremely / very confident

“How confident are you that information from artificial intelligence, chatbots or search results, is reliable and factual?” (49% not very / not at all)

USAFacts/AP-NORC · July 29–Aug. 10, 2026 · 1,036 adults

* Wording as reported in the pollster’s release; other items verbatim from the published toplines.

Is 2026 the AI Campaign?

7

A.I.-Generated Campaign Ads, 2026

25

220 ads in 34 states

33 ads in May; 164 in early September

81% Republican-sponsored

88% of spending; Democrats sponsored 12% of ads

Nearly half depict real politicians

From subtle enhancement to convincing deepfakes

Only 27% carry an A.I. disclaimer

No federal disclosure requirement; 30 states require some disclosure

The project calls its counts “almost certainly an undercount.” Sources: Wesleyan Media Project releases (May; Sept. 4; Oct. 15, 2026), using AdImpact data; Stuart A. Thompson, New York Times (Oct. 16, 2026).

The First Elections Executive Order (March 2025)

• “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”
• Documentary proof of citizenship (passport or citizenship-indicating ID) to register
• Officials to record the type of document presented
• DHS to review state voter lists for unqualified voters
• EAC funding conditioned on the federal form with proof of citizenship
• EAC to revise the VVSG to bar ballots that record votes in barcodes or QR codes
• EAC funding conditioned on an Election Day receipt deadline for mail ballots
• Status: courts blocked the core provisions

Source: Exec. Order 14248 (Mar. 25, 2025).

11

The Second Elections Executive Order (EO 14399, March 31, 2026)

What the order directs

• Gives the Postal Service an unprecedented role in mail voting, including directing it not to carry certain mail ballots.

• Directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile a federal citizenship list and share it with the states.

• Directs the Attorney General to prioritize prosecution of state and local officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters.

• Extends federal election record-retention obligations.

• Conditions federal election funding on state compliance with new voter verification requirements.

Sources: Executive Order 14399 (Mar. 31, 2026); Votebeat; Brennan Center (Weiser & Morales-Doyle, Apr. 2026); ACLU; Brookings.

ISSUED AUGUST 2026 — FEWER THAN 70 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION

The Supreme Court’s Rejection of USPS Rule on Ballot Mail

What the rule required

• Each state must submit a Mail-In and Absentee Participation List — a roster of voters approved to receive a mail ballot — through a new Federal Ballot Mail Portal.

• Mandatory envelope design, Official Election Mail logo, and ballot barcode standards, converting long-standing voluntary guidance into binding requirements.

• A second barcode scanning verification step at acceptance.

• USPS has said it would not deliver ballots for election officials who do not comply.

Timing and substance

• In 2024 USPS handled roughly 3.37 billion pieces of political and election mail, including about 222 million ballots to and from voters — a 65% increase in ballots since 2020.

• On-time three-day delivery of ballots to officials ran about 97.7% in 2024.

• An estimated 114,000 mail ballots were rejected as late in the 2018 midterms. Small changes in delivery timing move that number.

• States would have to build envelopes, portals, and voter lists inside the window in which ballots are already being printed.

Sources: USPS Final Rule, Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 32,915 (Aug. 26, 2026) (to be codified at 39 C.F.R. pt. 111); Brookings (July 2026); House Oversight Democrats letter (Feb. 2, 2026); Sen. Blumenthal whistleblower disclosure (Aug. 31, 2026); HSGAC Democrats (Sept. 2026).

Data Requests Made of Election Officials

DOJ Civil Rights Division letters to state election officials; ProPublica/Texas Tribune (Feb. 13, 2026).

17

DOJ: Data Demands

The suits

• DOJ has sued 30 states and D.C. for full voter lists, including driver’s license and Social Security numbers
• Courts have dismissed 26 of the suits; the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal in Michigan
• Oct. 9: Common Cause v. DOJ (D.D.C.) — checking state lists against SAVE “violates voter privacy and illegally intrudes on states’ authority over elections”
• At least 16 states have handed over complete lists

The letters

• Requests to at least 48 states and D.C.
• Warnings to officials in all fifty states of criminal exposure for “knowingly retaining” noncitizens on the rolls
• DOJ seeking a confidential MOU; Alaska and Texas signed
• Litigation losses do not undo the effect of demands, deadlines, and threatened prosecution on officials

Sources: Brennan Center, Tracker of Justice Department Requests for Voter Information (updated Oct. 15, 2026); CNN (Oct. 9, 2026); Votebeat; Voting Rights Lab.

18

14

Source:�Brennan Center �September 7, 2026

How States Have Responded to DOJ Voter-File Demands

US v. California: List Requests to �Challenge Mail Ballots Before They Are Counted

The allegation (filed Oct. 15, C.D. Cal.)

DOJ and DHS identify ~20,000 registered voters as “likely noncitizens” from cross-checks of federal records; DHS earlier claimed 190,000

Relief sought

Segregate those voters’ mail ballots and do not count them until citizenship is verified

California’s response

Weber: no evidence provided, and voting is underway. Bonta: the state will not comply; NVRA bars roll changes within 90 days of an election

Open questions

Can DOJ use 18 U.S.C. § 611 and the Supremacy Clause to get a civil injunction? How reliable are the matches? Does the suit conflict with the Oct. 9 SAVE ruling?

Sources: DOJ complaint, No. 2:26-cv-12025 (Oct. 15, 2026); AP/PBS NewsHour; Los Angeles Times; Democracy Docket (Oct. 2026).

21

Election Day/Month

​

• The Federal Infrastructure for Protecting Elections
• Election Official Resignations
• Feds at the Polls

​

​

The Federal Election Infrastructure

The Election Assistance Commission

• In July 2026 the President dismissed the three remaining commissioners — Thomas Hicks and Ben Hovland (D) and Christy McCormick (R). Donald Palmer had resigned earlier in the year.

• With no commissioners, the agency’s authority is limited. That affects voting system certification, maintenance of the federal voter registration form, and grant administration — in the months when states most need all three.

Election security support

• CISA’s election security function has been substantially reduced, with reporting of more than a thousand staff fired, transferred, or resigned, and the FBI’s election-disinformation work curtailed. State and local officials lose a threat-information channel they had come to rely on.

Sources: Democracy Docket (July 2026); States United Democracy Center; Voting Rights Lab (July 2026); Rick Hasen, Election Law Blog.

Election Official Resignations

• Two in five all the local officials who administered the 2020 election left their jobs before the 2024 cycle.
• The trend was especially pronounced in large jurisdictions.
• Rising turnover means less expertise and institutional knowledge.
• Still, 60% of chief local election officers still have experience administering a presidential election (though number was 72% in 2012).

18

Source: Bipartisan Policy Center

​

Source: Bipartisan Policy Center

ICE and the National Guard at the Polls: What Has Been Said

24

Feb. 26

DHS election-integrity official Heather Honey tells secretaries of state “there will be no ICE presence at polling locations for this election”

Mar. 3

Secretary Noem: “no plans” for ICE at polling places, but declines to rule it out

Mar.

Markwayne Mullin, at his confirmation hearing, declines to rule out deployment for a “specific threat”

May

The President: he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections”

Aug. 17

DOJ says it will keep sending federal personnel to polling places as election monitors

Sept. 1

Secretary Mullin: ICE at a polling place only for a threat or a warrant — “ICE isn’t there to patrol the polling places”

Sept. 18

FBI Director Patel declines to rule out FBI agents at voting sites

Sept.–Oct.

In litigation, DHS says ICE is not planning operations targeting polling places

Sources: Votebeat & CNN (Feb. 26); Democracy Docket (Mar. 3); Washington Post (Aug. 17); NBC News (Sept. 1); NPR (Sept. 18); Votebeat (Oct. 7, 2026); Brennan Center.

NAACP v. Blanche: Challenging DOJ’s Poll Monitors

After Election Day

​

• Late arriving Ballots
• Ballot Seizures
• Certification Challenges
• Contested Seats in forming the House

​

​

Late Arriving Ballots – �Watson v. RNC (June 2026)

• Held: Federal Election Day statutes do not preempt state laws counting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received afterward
• Mississippi’s five-day receipt window upheld
• “The choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received”
• Barrett for the Court; Alito dissenting
• Consequences
• Undercuts the statutory theory behind the executive orders’ Election Day receipt deadline
• Leaves late-arriving ballots — and slower counts — in place for November

Source: Watson v. Republican National Committee (U.S. June 2026); Venable LLP summary (July 2026).

16

California as a Late-Counting Outlier

2020

2024

Share of the vote reported over time, by state; California in red. Courtesy: Charles Stewart III, MIT.

28

Federal Seizures and Demands for Election Records, 2026

1

Jan. 28 — Fulton County, Ga.

FBI executes a search warrant and seizes ~650 boxes of 2020 ballots and records; court refuses to return them (May 6); ~260 FBI analysts assigned to review

2

Feb. — Puerto Rico

Office of the Director of National Intelligence obtains voting machines to examine for security risks

3

Mar. — Maricopa County, Ariz.

DOJ subpoena in a criminal investigation of 2020 seeks records of the state Senate’s partisan audit, including ballot images; county says it complied

4

Apr. — Wayne County, Mich.

DOJ demands “all ballots” and envelopes from the 2024 election; county says it does not have custody

5

May — Milwaukee, Wis.

FBI interviews current and former 2020 election workers

6

June — Los Angeles, Calif.

U.S. Attorney announces fraud investigations tied to the slow primary count; a federal prosecutor is sent to observe counting

Sources: Just Security (Keller & Rice, June 16, 2026); CRS In Focus IF13235 (May 26, 2026); Votebeat (June 8, 2026); CNN; Atlanta News First.

1

Refusals to Certify

1

Wayne County, Mich. (2020)

Canvassing board deadlocks on party lines, then certifies within hours

2

Otero County, N.M. (2022 primary)

Commission refuses to certify; state supreme court orders certification

3

Cochise County, Ariz. (2022)

Supervisors miss the canvass deadline; court orders certification; one later pleads guilty to a misdemeanor

4

Washoe County, Nev. (2024 primary recounts)

Commissioners vote not to certify, then reverse a week later

5

Shasta County, Calif. (2026 primary)

Registrar attempts to stall; later concedes there was no legal basis

6

The law

Certification is a mandatory, ministerial duty; courts and state officials can compel it

Sources: Democracy Docket (Sept. 21, 2026); Campaign Legal Center & Protect Democracy, 2026 certification guides; Brennan Center.

30

The Nuclear Option: Refusing to Seat Duly Elected Members

• As the new Congress is seated, members may object (“step aside”) to the seating of particular representatives
• Legal uncertainties
• Could happen before a Speaker is chosen — to prevent the choice of Speaker
• The vote on seating is taken by the uncontested members-elect who have been seated
• Precedent
• 1985, Indiana’s “Bloody Eighth”: Indiana certified McIntyre (R); the House refused to seat him, ran its own recount, and seated McCloskey (D) by four votes; Republicans walked out
• 2021, Iowa’s 2nd: Miller-Meeks (R) won by six votes; her opponent’s contest in the House was withdrawn

See Brian Kalt, Swearing in the Phoenix, Marquette L. Rev. (2021).

31

The Nuclear Option: Refusing to Seat Duly Elected Members

• As the new Congress is seated, members may object (“step aside”) to the seating of particular representatives
• Legal uncertainties
• Could happen before a Speaker is chosen — to prevent the choice of Speaker
• The vote on seating is taken by the uncontested members-elect who have been seated
• Precedent
• 1985, Indiana’s “Bloody Eighth”: Indiana certified McIntyre (R); the House refused to seat him, ran its own recount, and seated McCloskey (D) by four votes; Republicans walked out
• 2021, Iowa’s 2nd: Miller-Meeks (R) won by six votes; her opponent’s contest in the House was withdrawn

See Brian Kalt, Swearing in the Phoenix, Marquette L. Rev. (2021).

31

Confidence in Election Infrastructure

29

What Is to Be Done … to Mitigate Uncertainty and Chaos?

Speed

Mail-ballot states (especially California) commit resources to fast counting; courts resolve challenges to executive orders, DOJ data demands, and DOJ v. California immediately

Security

States strongly encourage voters to vote in person early

Certainty

The House articulates now how objections to seating members will be handled under different scenarios

Resilience

Raise the National Guard and ICE question as early as possible, so courts can intervene; clarify how states would respond if the USPS rule returns after 2026

34

“Lord, whatever happens, please don’t let it be close…”

— The Election Administrator’s Prayer