This is a concise rewrite of a Fresh Air interview with David Graham of The Atlantic about threats to the integrity of the 2026 midterm elections. Graham’s reporting maps a range of tactics, pressures and institutional weaknesses that experts say are already being tested and could intensify next year.
Recent special and local election results showed strong Democratic performances in several high-profile contests, but Graham cautions that winning races and having those wins respected are two different things. Local victories — and a California ballot measure that lets Democrats redraw congressional maps to potentially pick up seats — are a preview, not a determinant, of control of the U.S. House. Because control could hinge on a handful of seats, both parties are racing to reshape rules and maps to their advantage.
Redistricting and partisan pressure
Redistricting fights are underway in many states. California’s Proposition 50 cleared the way for Democrats to redraw maps and possibly gain seats; Governor Newsom publicly urged allies in other states to follow suit. Republicans have pursued similar tactics: Texas leadership called special sessions to redraw maps, and new or revised maps have appeared in Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio to make formerly competitive districts safer for the GOP. The White House has even pressured state-level Republican legislators to alter maps — a dynamic that exposes a broader arms race over district lines. When control might turn on only a few seats, small map changes and targeted legal fights become hugely consequential.
Justice Department monitors and a possible “dry run”
The Justice Department has begun sending election monitors to places like New Jersey and California. Historically, DOJ monitors focused on areas with documented voter suppression, but Graham reports that monitors are increasingly present in high-stakes contests important to Democrats. Experts worry this could normalize federal monitors and be used later to intimidate poll workers and voters, or to manufacture narratives of impropriety.
A hypothetical worst-case in Maricopa
Graham opens his piece with a fictional Election Day in Maricopa County to illustrate how several strains could converge: federal agents at polling sites, seizures of voting machines, armed forces on the streets and a media blitz alleging fraud. He chose Maricopa because it is politically competitive, has been a focal point of past interference attempts, and contains districts that could decide House control. While the scenario is extreme, experts Graham interviewed say the individual elements are plausible and worth preparing for.
Pressure, harassment and the shrinking pool of election administrators
Local election officials and poll workers now face elevated threats, harassment and political pressure. Many experienced administrators have left their posts rather than face threats and constant targeting. Those who stand up to false claims — even conservative officials who defend the integrity of their elections — are often ostracized within their party and sometimes defeated in primaries, which discourages competent candidates from seeking these roles. The result: understaffed, underfunded local election offices with less capacity to resist political pressure.
Information ecosystem and media influence
The media landscape that amplified 2020 falsehoods has shifted in ways that worry experts. Major outlets that pushed back in 2020 may be less inclined to alienate audiences now; social platforms have rolled back some moderation of election misinformation; and ownership and pressure on mainstream outlets risk softer coverage of false claims. The rapid proliferation of unverified narratives through sympathetic cable networks and social media can create a persistent belief in fraud even without substantive evidence.
Use and normalization of federal force
Graham documents an acceleration in the use of federal forces, National Guard deployments and federal law enforcement in cities and on immigration enforcement, which normalizes armed presence and checkpoints. Even absent direct deployment to polling places — which federal law generally prohibits except during an insurrection — heavy federal presence in communities can deter turnout through intimidation or inconvenience. Experts worry that such normalization lowers the political and legal costs of using force in or around elections.
Executive actions, weakened agencies, and new officials
The administration has tried executive actions that would interfere with standard voting practices — for example, insisting ballots received after Election Day shouldn’t count — and has pressured agencies around voting technology. At the same time, resources for election security have been curtailed: CISA’s workforce and funding have been reduced, while new administration appointees with a record of promoting election doubts have been placed in roles related to election integrity. Those moves reduce federal capacity to support local officials and amplify skepticism about election systems.
Courts, timing and the shadow docket
Most election litigation is decided in lower courts and rarely reaches the Supreme Court, but appeals and emergency filings could arise around 2026. Courts generally resist changing election rules close to a vote, which can limit last-minute legal interventions. Still, the Supreme Court’s use of the “shadow docket” and instances of unexpected rulings make the judicial landscape uncertain. The timing of litigation — whether disputes are resolved before votes are counted or are left to post-election fights — will matter enormously.
North Carolina as an early warning
North Carolina illustrates a full playbook: legislative gerrymandering, reduced early voting, partisan takeover of election boards and aggressive post-election legal maneuvers seeking to discard ballots. It shows how multiple pre-election changes plus post-election litigation can combine to threaten voters’ ability to have their choices respected.
Other actors and election technology
Beyond federal actors, private and local players can shift voting practices. Purchases or reorganizations of vendors like voting-machine manufacturers, advocacy for paper ballots, and election-denier candidates winning local posts create new points of control or uncertainty over how ballots are handled. Any increased third-party access to machines or archives of ballots raises chain-of-custody questions that can be exploited in litigation or political messaging.
Third-term fears, emergency powers and enforcement gaps
Though the Constitution limits presidential terms and most legal experts say a lawful third term is not possible, Graham notes that the concern is less about whether it’s legally feasible and more about whether someone would try extra-legal or manipulative paths and whether institutions would respond effectively. Emergency powers are broad and poorly tested in this context; courts’ speed and willingness to intervene would be decisive if an administration moved to seize machines, declare emergencies, or otherwise assert extraordinary authority.
Money, fundraising and political leverage
Wealthy backers and large donors remain powerful. Investigations into platforms and fundraising tools that power small-donor networks could weaken one side’s capacity to respond. The partisan paralysis of enforcement bodies like the FEC also makes campaign finance a less regulated environment, increasing the role money plays in tipping close contests.
Bottom line
Graham and the election experts he interviewed do not predict the end of elections in 2026; rather, they warn that multiple pressure points already in play — redistricting battles, local and federal pressure on election officials, changes to the information ecosystem, decreased security capacity, and the normalization of force around civic spaces — raise the real risk that elections could be blurred by legal fights, intimidation and contested outcomes. The central question for the coming year is not whether Americans will vote, but whether the rules, officials and courts will protect the results and ensure that close contests are resolved transparently and fairly.