Editor's Note: 

With the November 3 elections just days away, legal challenges over voting procedures, federal authority and election administration continue.

This special edition of FORWARD Midterm Watch examines the legal developments shaping the election, what to expect as results are counted and certified, and the potential implications for business.

Our objective is to help leaders navigate the days ahead with clarity, understand what is legally established and what remains unresolved, and prepare for the decisions that may follow.

Sheryl Daija
Founder & CEO

Federal Judge Rejects DOJ California Ballot Restrictions Amid Election Subpoenas

• Judge Says Trump Bid to Set Aside California Ballots Would "Wreak Havoc" on Democracy 

• Justice Dept. Pressures California With Expanded Election Investigation 

On October 28, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter denied the DOJ's emergency request to require California election officials to segregate ballots associated with approximately 20,000 registered voters the federal government identified as potential noncitizens. The DOJ sought to prevent those ballots from being counted until the voters' citizenship status could be verified.

The court found that the proposed intervention would disrupt an election already underway, risk disenfranchising eligible voters and intrude on state authority over election administration. California officials disputed the reliability of the federal government's data and argued that identifying and separating ballots during ongoing processing would be impractical. The DOJ appealed the ruling on October 28.

On October 29, details emerged of an expanded DOJ criminal investigation involving California election officials. At least two employees of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's office received federal grand jury subpoenas the previous week requiring appearances on November 4. This new round of subpoenas seeks internal communications concerning the DOJ's demands to election officials and the California secretary of state, along with records detailing procedures for identifying and preventing noncitizen voting. The subpoenas do not establish that the employees are suspected of wrongdoing.

DOJ Seeks to Block Alaska Senate Election Certification as State Opens Investigation Into Candidate Recruitment

• US Justice Department Sues to Block Possible Alaska Election of Democrats to Senate 

• Alaska’s GOP-led government asks court to block DOJ Senate race certification lawsuit

• Alaska Governor Orders Investigation Into Peltola Campaign Over Second Dan Sullivan Recruitment Claims

• DOJ issues subpoenas in Alaska Senate race as governor launches separate investigation

• DOJ seeks to wipe out bids to dismiss Alaska election case after amending lawsuit 

On October 22, the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit seeking to prevent Alaska from certifying the November 3 Senate election results if Republican incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan loses and votes cast for another candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., could have changed the outcome of his race against Democratic challenger Mary Peltola. The administration argues that having two candidates with similar names on the ballot could confuse voters. The Alaska Supreme Court previously rejected efforts to remove the second Sullivan from the ballot, finding no legal basis for doing so.

On October 26, Alaska moved to dismiss the federal lawsuit, arguing that the DOJ lacks a legal basis to interfere with the state's election certification process. Federal District Judge Sharon Gleason expedited consideration of the dismissal motions ahead of Election Day.

On October 28, a New York Times investigation revealed evidence of a coordinated effort involving individuals connected to Peltola's campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) to recruit additional candidates, including the second Sullivan, who could draw votes away from the Republican incumbent. The investigation relied on interviews, text messages and other documents. Both the Peltola campaign and DSCC deny involvement.

Also on October 28, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy directed the state's Department of Public Safety to investigate whether the alleged recruitment activities violated state law and whether criminal charges or civil action are warranted. 

On October 29, the DOJ expanded its federal criminal investigation, issuing dozens of subpoenas and records-preservation requests involving the alleged candidate-recruitment effort, including to the Peltola campaign and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.'s campaign. No criminal charges have been announced.

That same day, the DOJ filed an amended federal complaint incorporating the new allegations and adding a claim under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Rather than addressing the pending dismissal motions on their merits, the DOJ asked Judge Gleason to declare them moot because the original complaint had been amended. The court has not yet ruled on that request or determined whether its expedited schedule will change.

Recruiting additional candidates is not inherently unlawful, and no violation has been established. The federal criminal investigation and state inquiry are distinct from the civil lawsuit challenging Alaska's authority to certify its election results.

Democratic Committees Sue Trump Administration Over Alleged Interference in State Elections

• Democratic-Aligned Groups Sue Over Federal Crackdown on Voting 

• Statement on New Lawsuit to Stop Trump’s Illegal Efforts to Federalize Elections and Intimidate Voters

On October 20, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Democratic Governors Association and other plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's alleged efforts to interfere with state election administration ahead of the November 3 midterms.

The lawsuit alleges that federal officials have threatened state election administrators with criminal prosecution and pressured states to remove registered voters, withhold ballots or refuse to count votes based on disputed citizenship information. Plaintiffs argue that these actions violate the Voting Rights Act and constitutional protections governing federal elections.

On October 26, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the alleged interference before Election Day. On October 29, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg held a hearing and partially granted expedited discovery, directing the DOJ to identify states that received federal demands to remove voters, withhold ballots or set aside votes. The DOJ must provide the information by October 30, and the plaintiffs may supplement their arguments on standing by October 31. The court has not yet ruled on the requested emergency relief, with a decision expected by November 2.

Local Governments and National Organizations Challenge Federal Agents at Polling Places

• How some states are responding to DOJ's plan to send 1,000 monitors on Election Day 

• Voting Rights Organizations and Local Governments Expand Challenge to Trump-Vance Administration’s Plans for Armed Federal Agents at Polling Places 

• State Voting Laws Roundup: October 2026 

On October 20, Arlington County, Virginia, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to prevent armed federal law enforcement agents from conducting operations at polling places during the November 3 elections. The lawsuit follows similar challenges brought by Denver, Colorado, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and national voting rights organizations, including the NAACP and Democratic congressional committees. Related lawsuits were consolidated on October 23.

The plaintiffs argue that deploying armed federal agents at polling places could violate federal election laws, intimidate voters and interfere with state and local election administration. The administration has stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is not planning operations targeting polling places. The lawsuits concern potential armed law enforcement activity, not the Department of Justice's longstanding practice of monitoring elections for compliance with federal civil rights laws. 

Separately, seven states enacted legislation in 2026 strengthening protections against federal law enforcement interference in elections, including restrictions on activities at polling places. On October 28, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued guidance addressing unauthorized seizure of election materials, law enforcement access to election sites and voter intimidation.

On October 29, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans to deploy 134 election attorneys, 800 poll observers and 54 hotline operators to monitor voting and ballot counting in five competitive congressional districts. The effort, coordinated with the California Democratic Party, is intended to identify and respond to potential election interference.

Federal Judge Restricts DHS Voter Eligibility Investigations in Nine States

• Federal Judge Restricts DHS Field Operations for Noncitizen Voters

• Judge restricts DHS investigations into noncitizen voting, citing flawed data 

On October 21, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín issued a preliminary injunction restricting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigations into suspected noncitizen voting in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin through Election Day.

The court found that DHS was relying on potentially inaccurate voter and citizenship data to identify individuals for investigation, including naturalized U.S. citizens. The judge concluded that the agency's field operations were likely to violate the Voting Rights Act's prohibition against voter intimidation by interfering with voter outreach and participation efforts. The order restricts investigations involving individuals known or reasonably suspected to be U.S. citizens and operations based solely on the agency's voter-matching data.

DHS maintains that its investigations are intended to identify unlawful voting by noncitizens. The injunction took effect after an initial stay expired October 23. The administration appealed on October 26 and sought a stay of the injunction. On October 29, the district court denied the stay request. The Ninth Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments on a separate request for a stay, leaving the injunction in effect while appellate proceedings continue.

Federal Courts Reject DOJ Demands for State Voter Registration Records

• Tracker of Justice Department Requests for Voter Information

• The United States of America v. Henderson

On October 23, a federal judge dismissed the Department of Justice's lawsuit seeking Utah's unredacted voter registration records, adding to a growing series of decisions rejecting the administration's nationwide effort to obtain sensitive voter information.

Since 2025, the DOJ has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., seeking access to voter registration databases containing personal information, including dates of birth, driver's license numbers and portions of Social Security numbers. According to the Brennan Center's October 26 tracker, 27 cases have been dismissed at the district court level.

Federal courts have also repeatedly rejected the DOJ's interpretation of its authority under federal voting laws. The Sixth Circuit has upheld the dismissal of the Michigan case, while appeals in other jurisdictions remain pending. The DOJ has indicated it intends to appeal the Utah ruling, leaving the broader dispute over federal access to state voter records unresolved ahead of the November 3 elections.