Will the 2026 Mid-Term Election Have Integrity?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns election integrity. President Donald Trump is insisting on honest and fair elections in the upcoming federal elections. On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order on voting in federal elections. The order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” would give overlapping responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Postal Service. The order gave DHS the responsibility to compile a list for each state of U.S. citizens who will be at least 18 years old by Election Day, and the Postal Service the responsibility to transmit ballots from only voters whose names appear on the list.

As they usually do, 20 Left-leaning states, led by California, challenged the order, arguing that eligibility to vote is a states’ right issue under the U.S. Constitution. Emma Pitts at the Deseret News reported on the issue as follows. 

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani sided with the states on June 25, and [she] prohibited the federal government from implementing the order ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

“The States alone determine voter-eligibility requirements, subject only to the outer limits of the Constitution,” the Massachusetts judge ruled, adding, “This injunction does not bar the federal government from providing assistance with verifying citizenship or eligibility of any voter if the assistance is provided at the request of any State and within the framework provided by Congress.”

Talwandi refused the Trump administration’s request for a pause on her injunction, causing the defendants to then request a pause from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1^st Circuit. The appeals court ultimately refused to pause the lower court’s injunction:

“Were the EO (executive order) to take effect for the elections taking place in September and November, it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters. And given that the Government ‘make(s) no argument that (its) actions were legal on the merits,’ and ‘there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful (government) action,’ the public interest does not favor a stay.”

In the federal government’s last attempt to lift the lower court injunction while the underlying appeal continues in the 1^st Circuit, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed to the Supreme Court.

The filing does not ask the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s election executive order right now; instead, it asks the justices to determine what rules should be in effect while that litigation continues.

“A stay – along with an immediate administrative stay – is also warranted because the injunction below imposes irreparable harm on the government,” Sauer argued. “Absent a stay, the government will be unable to obtain appellate relief from an order that bars implementation of a presidential policy that seeks to ensure voter integrity in the upcoming November 2026 election. Accordingly, both the irreparable harm factor and the public interest favor the government.”

On Tuesday, 12 states, headed by Alabama, sided with the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause the 1^st Circuit’s order while litigation continues.