you are reading state court report Biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.
this week, state court report has launched the Election 2026 Hub, which regularly covers judicial elections, voting measures, and state election litigation. Our purpose is to help readers understand the broader legal landscape, including the relationship between state and federal election laws, at a time when the president is asserting unprecedented powers.
Some of the issues we are looking at are:
Last week, President Trump announced his intention to “nationalize” elections. one of state court report‘s most-read article explains why such efforts would be unconstitutional. State and local governments, rather than the president, are primarily responsible for setting election rules and administering elections, including registering voters, managing polling places, and counting votes. Congress has the power to set national standards for elections, but the president does not have the power to rewrite those laws or change state laws governing how elections are conducted.
Among other power claims, the Trump administration is demanding that states turn over voter registration lists and other election-related records. The Justice Department has sued 24 states and Washington, D.C., in federal court for failing to comply. Federal courts in California, Michigan and Oregon have already rejected the administration’s claims. These types of legal disputes are fought primarily in federal courts, but they address fundamental questions about state power in the federal system and raise the chilling prospect that the federal government will threaten free and fair elections.
State courts are also poised to play a major role in election-related litigation this year. In both 2022 and 2024, the majority of election cases were heard in state courts. These lawsuits, some of which raised constitutional challenges, involved litigation over election rules and processes, voter eligibility, and vote-counting operations.
One issue we will be watching closely is how state courts will handle post-election litigation. Last year’s most high-profile election lawsuit was a dispute over North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Alison Riggs’ narrow victory in the 2024 election. Ultimately, a federal court blocked a North Carolina high court ruling siding with Riggs’ opponents that invalidated some votes cast under the rules set at the time of the election. The U.S. Constitution prohibits states from changing election rules after the fact, a fundamental principle that binds both state and federal courts, the federal judge explained.
The recent mid-decade redistricting battles have also led to new state lawsuits to be decided this year, which could affect the U.S. House maps for this year’s midterm elections. For example, the Missouri Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in March over whether the Legislature violated the state constitution when it enacted mid-decade congressional maps. Missouri’s trial court is also considering an argument that the new map should be blocked until voters have a chance to weigh in through a referendum. Meanwhile, in Virginia, a trial court blocked the Legislature’s proposed constitutional amendment to redraw the state’s legislative map, ruling that the process violated the state constitution. This decision is being appealed.
Lawsuits in other states could lead to further redistricting. In New York, a trial court ruled in January that one of the state’s congressional districts was inconsistent with a 2014 state constitutional amendment that prohibited racial vote dilution. The trial court’s order to redraw the map is currently pending appeal.
State courts could also hear disputes related to voting measures, such as citizen initiatives seeking to change the state constitution or pass new state laws. We just published a new commentary detailing the important role state courts play in the 25 states that have some form of direct democracy, from determining whether proposed bills meet signature requirements to evaluating ballot language to enforcing passed initiatives.
We’ll also look at state constitutional amendments scheduled to be voted on this year. Some of it is citizen-initiated, and some of it is proposed by state legislatures. These include at least two amendments related to abortion rights, one that would codify abortion rights in Nevada and one that would repeal the abortion rights amendment in Missouri.
Another proposed amendment in Kansas would be of particular interest to those who follow state courts. Kansas voters will decide in August whether to change the way judges are selected. The amendment would replace judicial elections with the state’s existing merit selection system, in which the governor appoints judges who are vetted by the Judicial Nominating Commission.
as state court report As our readers are well aware, state courts play a powerful role in shaping the election landscape in the United States, among other roles. Another big topic we’ll be looking at this year is the elections that will determine who will be judges on many of these courts. A total of 32 states will hold elections for 65 Supreme Court seats in 2026. state court report Founding editor Douglas Keith provides previews of key races to watch, including Montana, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Washington, and more. As Keith points out, these elections take place “at a time of new intensity in state judicial politics,” with multimillion-dollar campaigns, attack ads, and heightened attention from both powerful interest groups and the broader public.
state court report is here year-round to track, explain, and provide context for these and other election developments.
Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief state court report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended quote: Alicia Bannon What we’re watching for in the 2026 electionSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (February 12, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-were-watching-2026-elections
