When voters hear about 2020 election deniers running in swing states, most assume the story is simply a repeat of 2022. According to tracking by the nonpartisan group States United Action, the actual picture in 2026 is far more complicated. Fewer election deniers made it onto general election ballots this cycle than four years ago. Yet in battleground states that decide presidential elections, candidates who questioned or rejected the 2020 results still captured major party nominations for governor, attorney general, and secretary of state—and their November 2026 results show how voters actually weigh election integrity at the ballot box.
If you only follow national cable news, you might miss the real shift. The numbers dropped, sure. The stakes in specific battlegrounds didn't.
Why the 2026 Numbers Tell a Two-Sided Story
Here's the data most pundits gloss over. According to a report from States United Action, the number of election deniers on general election ballots for statewide office dropped by 33 percent between the 2022 and 2026 midterms, falling from 49 candidates to 33. Congressional candidacies among election deniers fell by 31 percent over the same period, dropping from 236 to 164.
Those numbers look like a steep decline. Look closer at where those candidates ran.
In 2026, election deniers still appeared on general election ballots across 43 states. More importantly, nearly a third of all election deniers on the November ballot were concentrated in just five states, including two major presidential battlegrounds—Michigan and Pennsylvania. Even with fewer candidates overall, winning just one or two top administrative posts in a swing state gives an officeholder real authority over how future elections are run, audited, and certified.
UCLA election law professor Rick Hasen captured this tension in an interview with Vox, noting that observers have to walk a fine line between complacency and alarmism. Even if a governor or secretary of state doesn't outright refuse to certify a result, Hasen warned, they can still use administrative authority to alter voting rules, restrict access, or undermine public confidence in legitimate tallies.
The Battleground Candidates Who Shaped the 2026 Cycle
Across the core swing states, the 2026 midterms featured several high-profile races where candidates' stances on the 2020 presidential election became central campaign issues. Reporting from The Guardian and Capital & Main highlights how these contests played out in key states.
Arizona's Top-of-the-Ticket Contests
Few states sat closer to the center of 2020 election disputes than Arizona. In 2026, Republican voters nominated Congressman Andy Biggs for governor against Democratic incumbent Katie Hobbs. Biggs voted against certifying Arizona's and Pennsylvania's 2020 electoral votes on January 6, 2021, and repeatedly questioned the validity of the state's results despite multiple reviews and a state Senate-backed audit confirming Joe Biden's win.
Down the ballot in Arizona, state Senate President Warren Petersen—who initiated that 2021 ballot review—won the Republican nomination for attorney general. Meanwhile, state Representative Alexander Kolodin secured the GOP nomination for secretary of state against Democratic incumbent Adrian Fontes. Analysts at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics noted that Kolodin's nomination shifted their rating of the secretary of state race from a toss-up toward the Democrats, reflecting how swing-state general election voters have tended to push back against election-denial platforms.
Nevada's Rematch for Chief Elections Officer
Nevada offered one of the clearest tests of whether voters would hand election oversight to a vocal critic of the 2020 vote. In 2026, Republican Jim Marchant won a surprise primary victory to set up a rematch against Democratic Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar. Marchant had previously run on a platform rejecting the 2020 results and advocating changes to how ballots are cast and counted. While their 2022 race had been decided by a narrow margin, election analysts at Sabato's Crystal Ball observed that Marchant faced steeper headwinds in 2026 as independent voters scrutinized administrative stability.
Wisconsin and the Walk-Back Strategy
Not every candidate kept the same message from 2020 into 2026. Take Wisconsin's gubernatorial race. Republican nominee Tom Tiffany objected to certifying 2020 electoral votes while serving in Congress and declined as late as May 2026 to state plainly whether Joe Biden had won Wisconsin fairly, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Later in the 2026 general election campaign against Democrat David Crowley, Tiffany shifted his public framing. In a statement to Wisconsin Watch, Tiffany acknowledged that Biden won and pledged that as governor in 2028 he would certify whichever candidate wins the most votes in Wisconsin. That pivot illustrates a broader reality in purple states. Positions that help a candidate win a partisan primary often become liabilities once independent voters start paying attention in the fall.
Michigan and Georgia's Administrative Races
In Michigan, Republican John James ran against Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. James had previously offered mixed statements—telling PBS NewsHour in 2022 that Biden was duly elected while also claiming at other points that Benson had manipulated the 2020 election process.
In Georgia, where Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had famously resisted pressure to overturn the 2020 results, the open 2026 race saw Republican voters turn toward candidates critical of the 2020 process, with Kelvin King Jackson winning a primary runoff over former fake elector Burt Jones. Yet in the November general election, reporting from Bolts Magazine noted that Democrats flipped secretary of state offices in Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio, defeating Republican nominees in key administrative contests.
What Actually Happens When an Election Denier Wins Office
A common misconception is that a governor or secretary of state can simply wave a hand and throw out millions of ballots. Federal and state laws make unilateral reversal nearly impossible. Following the 2020 disputes, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act, tightening the timeline for governors to submit certificates of ascertainment and creating expedited federal court review if an executive refuses to follow state law.
The real power of these offices is quieter and far more practical. If you've ever worked near state government or local election administration, you know that rules are shaped in the fine print long before Election Day.
- Voter roll maintenance and challenges: Secretaries of state set guidelines for how counties purge inactive voters and process mass voter eligibility challenges brought by outside activist groups.
- Guidance to local clerks: In decentralized states like Wisconsin and Michigan, municipal and county clerks rely on state directives for drop boxes, absentee ballot curing, and poll watcher access.
- Litigation posture: State attorneys general decide whether to defend state voting laws in court or join lawsuits challenging mail-in ballot deadlines and federal voting rules.
- Resource allocation: Governors and state officials influence funding for voting equipment upgrades, cybersecurity support, and local election worker training.
Those administrative levers don't make dramatic cable news segments. They directly affect wait times, rejection rates for mail ballots, and how smoothly a close recount unfolds.
The Counterargument From Candidates and Supporters
To understand why these candidates continue winning primaries, it helps to listen to what their supporters actually say rather than dismissing them out of hand. Many Republican voters and candidates argue that questioning 2020 procedures isn't about undermining democracy—it's about fixing rapid rule changes made during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Supporters point to the sudden expansion of universal mail-in voting, extended ballot receipt deadlines, and third-party grants to local election offices in 2020 as legitimate policy grievances. From their perspective, stricter voter ID rules, limits on ballot drop boxes, and tighter chain-of-custody logs restore confidence for skeptical voters. When candidates like Andy Biggs or Tom Tiffany raise concerns about election integrity, their voters often hear a call for stricter guardrails rather than a rejection of constitutional order.
At the same time, election administrators from both parties—including Republicans like Brad Raffensperger in Georgia and former Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer in Arizona—have repeatedly demonstrated through hand audits, logic-and-accuracy testing, and court filings that the 2020 results were accurate and that baseless fraud claims harm public trust and put poll workers at risk.
What the November 2026 Results Showed
When votes were counted in November 2026, voters drew a sharp line between safe partisan districts and competitive statewide races. According to a post-election update from States United Action, election deniers lost ground in statewide administrative contests across the country.
In secretary of state races tracked by the organization, election-denying candidates lost five of the six contests called by November 5. In attorney general races, they were defeated in five of the nine races called. Meanwhile, in heavily gerrymandered or safely partisan U.S. House districts—such as Jim Jordan's district in Ohio—incumbents who voted against certifying the 2020 results won reelection easily.
The pattern is consistent across multiple cycles now. Primary voters in safe districts reward ideological loyalty on 2020 grievances. Swing-state general election voters, however, remain wary of handing the keys to the voting booth to candidates who cast doubt on the system itself.
How to Evaluate Any Candidate's Stance on Elections
Whether you're researching a local county clerk race or a statewide governor's contest ahead of 2028, don't rely on campaign slogans or attack ads. Use a simple three-step check on any candidate running for an office that touches elections:
- Check their certification record and public pledges: Look up how they voted on January 6, 2021, if they served in Congress, or whether they have stated clearly—without hedging—that they will certify future election results certified by local canvassing boards.
- Look at their specific administrative proposals: Separate concrete policy ideas (like expanding early voting hours or requiring specific forms of voter ID) from unsupported claims about rigged voting machines or mass non-citizen voting.
- Follow local election administration reporting: National outlets focus on governors and senators, while nonpartisan outlets like Bolts, Votebeat, and your state's capital press corps track the county recorders, clerks, and state board appointees who actually run the machines and count the ballots.
Pay close attention to the down-ballot offices on your own local ballot—county clerk, recorder, and state secretary of state—because those are the officials who determine how smoothly your vote is counted long before the next presidential race begins.
