The Verdict is In: States Still Run Elections

During his prime-time address, President Trump used his podium to pressure Congress to pass the SAVE America Act. A day later, the Department of Homeland Security threatened to withhold federal aid from states that don’t comply with the administration’s demands to comb through confidential state voter files. 

This is just the latest in a series of attempts by this administration to seize control over elections. Yet across the court system, U.S. judges have unanimously reaffirmed a core constitutional principle: state and local authorities run elections, not the president. 

While the courts continue to uphold states’ authority, recent decisions will have a mixed impact on voters and election administration, ranging from protecting mail ballot access to limiting protections against partisan gerrymandering. Many appeals will continue to work their way through our court system throughout the summer and fall — just in time for Election Day. 

By the Numbers

30	Number of states sued by the DOJ for refusing to hand over private voter information.
15	Number of district court judges that have blocked those efforts.
7	Number of district court judges who were Trump appointees.
3/3	Number of federal courts that have kept Trump’s March 2025 executive order from taking effect.

SCOTUS in Review: A Mixed Bag for Voter Freedom

The Supreme Court issued four major decisions this term that are already shaping voting and election administration across the country. For a detailed breakdown of the election-related cases before the Supreme Court this term, see our analysis here.

Watson v. RNC

In Watson vs. RNC, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Mississippi’s mail ballot deadline. The Court reaffirmed states’ authority to set their own rules around whether to accept ballots postmarked by Election Day, even if they arrive afterward. Current federal statutes defining Election Day, the Court ruled, do not preempt these state laws. The ruling is a major victory for the 15 states that currently offer postmark grace periods. It will ensure that tens of thousands of votes will not be rejected simply because of postal delays beyond voters’ control. 

Louisiana v. Callais

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court handed states more power to control their elections, but at the expense of fair representation. In the closely-watched case, the Court significantly tightened the standards federal courts must apply to determine whether district maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This law has ensured fair representation for communities of color for decades. The result: states like Tennessee and Louisiana moved immediately to redraw their congressional maps for partisan gain – just in time for the midterms. 

Bost v. Illinois. St. Bd. of Elections

In a challenge to Illinois’ mail ballot deadline, the Supreme Court ruled that candidates in federal elections have legal standing to challenge state election laws. While the decision could help resolve legal challenges before voters go to the polls, it also lowers the bar for challenges, potentially increasing the number of frivolous or politically motivated lawsuits that could disrupt the election process.

Trump v. Slaughter

Though not strictly an election case, state and local election officials are already feeling the impact of this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the President has the authority to fire the heads of certain federal agencies at will. Within two weeks of the decision, President Trump fired all three remaining commissioners of the Election Assistance Commission. Without any leadership, the commission has limited authority, leaving state election officials in the dark about critical federal support this fall, including grant funding, federal voter registration form maintenance, and voting equipment certification. 

Lower Courts Side with States

Outside the Supreme Court, this tug-of-war for control played out across many lower courts. But in every major case, the lesson is clear: states, not the federal executive branch, are in the driver’s seat when it comes to election administration. 

Courts Deny DOJ’s Voter Roll Demand

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has repeatedly sought access to states’ full voter registration lists, including personal data such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. While a some states acquiesced, many have pushed back, citing state and federal privacy laws. To date, the DOJ has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., but all 17 federal courts have denied these efforts. Their argument is simple: federal law does not override states’ constitutional authority to run elections. 

Courts Block Trump’s Executive Orders

The lower courts have also blocked President Trump’s efforts to reshape how elections are run through executive orders. Last year, the President issued an executive order demanding proof of citizenship for voter registration, changes to military voting, shortened mail ballot deadlines, and the decertification of election equipment, among other changes to how states run elections. The administration has appealed the injunctions, but none of the appellate courts seem in any hurry to consider the appeals. 

One year later, the President issued a second executive order on elections — which is facing similar roadblocks in the courts. This time around, the President sought to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create lists of confirmed U.S. citizens for states to use in maintaining voter lists. The order also sought to impose new restrictions on the Postal Service’s ability to deliver mail ballots. 

Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C. sued in a Massachusetts federal court, which ultimately granted a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the executive order in those states. Separate litigation in D.C. federal courts is ongoing.

One study by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School found that the combined election-related caseload of state and federal courts increased dramatically between the last two midterm elections — from 226 cases in 2018 to 407 in 2022. This trend will only escalate in the wake of the Bost decision, suggesting courts at all levels will need to consider significant election issues throughout the rest of 2026.

What to Expect in the Coming Months

It is unlikely all of these moving cases will be resolved before the midterms, and any last-minute changes threaten to create confusion for voters, election officials, and observers. For example, the courts are weighing whether DHS can add new citizenship-verification features to the SAVE database. The risk here is high: using a system never intended for this purpose could lead to wrongful removals of eligible citizens just before the midterms. 

State and federal courts will also consider numerous challenges to state election laws in the run-up to this year’s midterms. The Supreme Court has already signaled it will take up two election-related cases next term: a challenge to Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement and a challenge to a Pennsylvania law requiring election officials to reject undated mail ballots. You can read more about what’s at issue, and what to watch for, here.

The lesson from the courts is clear: the president cannot simply bypass state legislatures to rewrite the rules governing our elections. But this administration remains undeterred — and Trump and his allies are unlikely to slow their efforts to intervene in this year’s midterms. And the onus cannot only be on the courts to stand in their way.