This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.
President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about voter fraud, attempts to reshape U.S. election law, and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election have left plenty of people worried that his administration will try to interfere with the 2026 midterm elections. But what threats are worth taking seriously, and what is just doomerism?
To answer that question with certainty, we’d need a crystal ball — which, unfortunately, is not in our arsenal. But we do have the next best thing: the educated guesses of more than 30 experts in election law and administration.
Last spring, we asked them to assess the likelihood of over two dozen potential scenarios that could upend the midterms — from new voting rules, to troops at the polls, to widespread voter fraud, to an overturned election. Now, with just weeks remaining until the midterms, we recently went back to them and asked for their final answers to the same questions.
In broad strokes, their opinions were unchanged. While they believe the election is likely to face challenges — such as federal agents interfering with the voting process — they ultimately do not expect a significant number of voters to be disenfranchised or the final results to be illegitimate. If anything, fewer things are keeping them up at night now than in the spring.
One of the least likely midterm scenarios, in the eyes of the experts, is that new voting laws or regulations will be put in place before the election. At least 26 of the 31 experts who filled out the questionnaire said it was unlikely that states would pass laws restricting mail voting, strengthening voter ID requirements, requiring new registrants to prove their citizenship, cutting access to in-person voting, or limiting or eliminating the use of tabulators to tally ballots.
This was a mild shift from the spring, when all of these scenarios (except limiting voting machines) were considered at least somewhat likely by a substantial minority of experts.
The reason for the change is pretty clear: Although some states might have passed new election laws in the spring and summer, by the fall, there was no longer time to enact any new laws. Mitchell Brown, a political science professor at Auburn University who was one of the experts who shifted her answer, explained that most legislatures had adjourned by the time of the second survey. “Unless something extraordinary happened it wouldn’t have been possible” to change the laws, she said.
Likewise, experts thought it was unlikely that the federal government would change election rules in any of those ways. That was largely unchanged from the spring, when our respondents were similarly skeptical that Trump would be able to get Congress or the courts to go along with his proposed election law changes, such as the SAVE America Act or his executive orders on elections.
Experts were much more emphatic about federal action than state action, with at least 24 saying it was not at all likely that federal law would affect four of these five aspects of voting. The exception, though, was mail voting. Twenty-five experts still thought it was unlikely that the federal government would restrict it, but only 11 said it was not at all likely, and four experts thought it was somewhat likely.
This is probably because most of our respondents (23 out of 31) filled out the questionnaire before the Supreme Court blocked the U.S. Postal Service’s proposed rules restricting the delivery of some mail ballots for the 2026 election. In a separate question, 16 of the 23 thought it was unlikely that the courts would allow the Postal Service rules to take effect, but there was plenty of uncertainty: Only eight said it was not at all likely.
With the Postal Service question resolved, though, experts are pretty sure the federal government won’t restrict mail voting in the midterms. Seven of the eight experts who answered that question after the Supreme Court’s ruling said further limits on mail voting were unlikely.
In general, experts are still very aware of the possibility that court rulings could significantly alter election rules shortly before the midterms. Almost half (13) of the 31 people surveyed thought that was at least somewhat likely. Notably, the share of experts saying so was roughly equal before and after the Supreme Court’s mid-September decisions on the Postal Service and Missouri’s congressional map, suggesting that their concerns were broader rather than tied to specific cases pending at the time.
One of the biggest questions looming over the midterms is whether federal agents, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, will physically disrupt the voting process. It’s illegal to send armed troops to polling places absent a violent threat, but the Trump administration has sent mixed messages about whether it might do so — saying they have no plans to but declining to rule it out entirely.
Experts, though, consider this a serious possibility. Nineteen of the 31 thought it was at least somewhat likely that the federal government would deploy some form of military or law enforcement personnel at or near polling places during the midterms. That said, the share was notably smaller than in the spring; on net, four experts who took the survey both times switched from likely to unlikely.
Pam Smith, the president and CEO of Verified Voting and one of the experts who changed her answer, offered a number of reasons for her reevaluation. She noted that, since the spring, several primaries took place without any armed federal intervention, and several states (such as California) have passed laws to strengthen existing prohibitions on voter intimidation. She added that, paradoxically, the Trump administration’s rhetoric hinting about federal agents at polling places “also has given rise to robust pushback, including several lawsuits seeking to prevent this kind of scenario in advance.”
Brown, the Auburn professor, also switched her answer to this question between the two surveys. “There simply aren’t enough ICE agents out there, nor are there enough National Guard troops, to flood everywhere,” she explained.
Relatedly, a majority of experts (18 of 31) thought it was at least somewhat likely that Trump would ask federal agents to seize voting equipment or ballots after the election. However, that was significantly fewer than in the spring, with six experts, on net, changing their answers from likely to unlikely.
Experts were less concerned about seizures during voting itself. Most experts now think Trump probably will not ask federal agents to seize materials during the election, with only 13 of 31 saying that was likely. In the spring, a majority said that was at least somewhat likely.
Former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican who has broken with Trump on election issues, said he changed his mind on both questions after watching the president over the past few months. “While I am certainly troubled by much of the rhetoric and many actions, the administration has generally respected court decisions,” he wrote in an email. “Also, at key points - such as the President’s much ballyhooed election integrity address in July that ended up being a mostly nothingburger -- they have either stood down, or their actions did not rise to the level of their rhetoric.”
Another expert who changed his mind, Western Carolina University political scientist Christopher Cooper, noted that Republicans are starting to resign themselves to the idea that they will lose seats in the midterms. “It just seems that Trump has moved on,” he said. “After all, there’s an arch to be built.”
In general, experts still believe there will be physical threats to voters or polling places in 2026. Almost three-quarters (22 of 31) thought this was likely, roughly matching their spring responses. But, encouragingly, only nine of the 31 experts thought it was likely that a significant number of voters would decide not to vote in the midterms because of those threats.
One thing that hasn’t changed since the spring is our experts’ confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections. Virtually all of them (30 of 31) believe it is unlikely that a significant number of ineligible voters will cast ballots in the midterms, including 27 who believe it is not at all likely. The same number of experts believe it is unlikely that voter fraud could influence the outcome of a 2026 congressional race, including 26 who believe it is not at all likely.
Of course, politicians don’t all share this confidence — and experts expect them to question the election as a result. Three-quarters of experts (23 of 31) said they thought it was at least somewhat likely that a significant number of losing candidates would claim fraud influenced the outcome of the midterms. And every single expert thought it was likely that at least one congressional or statewide election result in 2026 would be legally challenged.
But an election being legally challenged isn’t the same as an election getting overturned — and experts are confident that the final midterm results will reflect the will of the voters. The vast majority (26 of 31) said that it was unlikely that any congressional or statewide election results from 2026 would be overturned.
Overall, our survey found that election experts are cautiously optimistic that the 2026 midterms will be administered fairly — even in the face of significant challenges. But they are also keeping a watchful eye out for a handful of serious and unprecedented threats. And even if the election goes smoothly, they warn not to discount the psychological impact of the perception that democracy is under threat.
Cooper, the Western Carolina University professor, summed up the thoughts of many of his peers. “Even though I think the odds of successfully pulling most of this off is low, the effect on distrust in the system is real and concerning.”
Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.
Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.
For customer support contact support@rawstory.com.
