Election Deniers Seek Control Over Key Voting Offices in 2026 Midterms

Amid the political noise surrounding the 2026 midterm elections, a quieter but potentially far-reaching development is unfolding across the United States: a growing number of candidates who deny past election results are running for positions that directly oversee future elections.

According to a new analysis by States United Action, at least 53 candidates who question or reject certified election outcomes are running for statewide offices in 23 states. These include critical battlegrounds that could shape not only the 2026 races but also the 2028 presidential election and beyond.

Why These Positions Matter

The roles in question — including secretary of state, governor, and attorney general — are central to how elections are administered, certified, and legally interpreted.

Secretaries of state, in particular, are often the top election officials in their states. While traditionally low-profile, these positions gained national attention during the 2020 election, when officials from both parties resisted pressure to alter or overturn certified results.

In some cases, those officials faced intense backlash. In Georgia, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger refused requests to “find” additional votes. In Michigan, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson faced protests and threats outside her home.

Now, both states are preparing to elect new leaders — and candidates who deny election outcomes are among those competing for power.

A Widespread Trend Across States

The issue is not confined to a handful of regions. The analysis found that 39 states are holding elections this year for offices that influence election processes.

In Arizona, a key presidential swing state, candidates who have denied past election results are running for all three major statewide roles tied to elections: governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.

One prominent example is Andy Biggs, a leading candidate for governor, who previously voted against certifying the 2020 presidential results while serving in Congress.

Defining ‘Election Denial’

States United Action classifies candidates as election deniers if they meet at least one of several criteria. These include:

• Claiming that the 2020 election was wrongly decided
• Supporting efforts to overturn certified results
• Promoting false or unproven theories about election fraud

The organization says its goal is to provide voters with clear, factual information about where candidates stand on election integrity.

Impact on Future Elections

Experts warn that the presence of election-denying officials in key roles could affect how future elections are conducted and certified.

“These positions carry real authority,” said Joanna Lydgate, CEO of States United Action. “It’s critical that voters understand whether candidates believe in free and fair elections.”

Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center described the movement as a small but highly organized force within American politics — one that continues to influence candidates and policy debates.

Political Risks and Trends

Despite concerns, there are signs that running on election denial may carry political risks.

Data from previous election cycles suggests that candidates who denied the 2020 results underperformed compared to their peers, particularly in competitive states. Some estimates place the electoral penalty at around three percentage points.

As a result, fewer candidates are openly embracing election denial in highly contested races. However, the strategy remains more common in strongly partisan states or crowded primaries where candidates seek endorsement from former President Donald Trump.

Perspectivas a futuro

While election denial remains a minority position among voters, its presence in statewide races highlights ongoing tensions over trust in U.S. elections.

With dozens of candidates seeking offices that directly oversee voting processes, the outcome of the 2026 midterms could have lasting consequences — not just for the balance of power in Congress, but for the integrity and administration of future elections nationwide.