While national media focus remains on the reshuffling of power within the US Congress, the 2026 midterm elections have introduced a significant, albeit quieter, shift in the officials responsible for managing the democratic process. In Georgia, Ohio, and Indiana, Democrats have successfully unseated Republican incumbents in offices that hold authority over the administration of voting. And the cable panels will chew on that for weeks, there has been a reshuffle of power in the US Congress. The victories were part of a wider Democratic surge that reached beyond the congressional contests dominating national headlines. Indiana offers a different explanation for the Democrats’ success.
Known as secretaries of state, these officials are tasked with maintaining voter registration rolls, managing voting technology, issuing administrative guidance, and certifying final results. The transition of leadership in these three states has sparked public debate regarding whether these new officials might influence the landscape of the 2028 presidential election. Their victories raise a question: could the change in leadership influence how America’s next presidential election is conducted in 2028. The state also faces the task of implementing a new voting system ahead of 2028. He also identifies another problem worth addressing before 2028: laws and procedures that make it difficult to report election results quickly. Although their powers vary, it is here that the secretaries of state play an important role.
Experts, however, suggest that the actual influence of these roles is often overestimated. Charles Stewart III, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who directs the Election Data and Science Lab, argues that the legal authority of a secretary of state is limited. According to Stewart, these officials operate primarily on the margins, and any administrative decisions they make are frequently subject to judicial review. Sure, the experts call it a real shift, but they add a warning: running the polls is not the same as picking the president. Who lost to Bayh, republicans instead nominated Max Engling.
The shift follows a broader pattern of Democratic gains across the country. Thessalia Merivaki, director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute of Public Policy and Public Service at Washington State University, suggests these results reflect a general voter dissatisfaction with Republican governance across multiple policy areas, including election management. Washington, DC — Most election nights are remembered for who won the House and the Senate. The 2026 US midterms may be remembered for who won the referee’s whistle.
In Georgia, Penny Brown Reynolds defeated Republican Tim Fleming to take over the secretary of state office. This transition occurs in a state that has been a focal point for intense electoral scrutiny since the 2020 presidential election. The incoming officeholder will face a complex environment, particularly because Georgia’s state legislature previously removed the secretary of state from the State Election Board, effectively separating some oversight responsibilities from the role. When Republican secretary of state Brad Raffensperger resisted pressure from President Trump to revisit the state’s results, the southern state became the centre of controversy after the 2020 presidential election. Particularly when eligible citizens are mistakenly removed, such decisions can affect voters.
Ohio also saw a notable change as Democrat Allison Russo defeated Republican Robert Sprague.
Merivaki identifies this transition as particularly significant due to controversies surrounding outgoing Republican secretary of state Frank LaRose. LaRose faced widespread criticism for his handling of voter roll maintenance and for his involvement in a 2023 abortion-related ballot initiative, which critics argued blurred the lines between his neutral administrative duties and partisan politics. But the quieter story sits a few lines down the ballot.
In Indiana, Democrat Beau Bayh secured the secretary of state position following a campaign marked by internal Republican friction. The outgoing administration, led by Diego Morales, faced significant controversy, and Morales ultimately failed to secure renomination at his party’s state convention.
Despite the change in party control, experts caution against assuming that these new officials will fundamentally alter the mechanics of how elections are conducted. The US relies on a decentralized system where states and individual counties bear the primary responsibility for administering polls. In many jurisdictions, county-level election officials maintain considerable independent authority that remains insulated from the state-level secretary of state.
Stewart points out that political affiliation alone is a poor indicator of how faithfully an official will implement the law. He notes that while some concern exists regarding how these offices manage tasks such as ballot access or the reporting of results, the constraints of state and federal law provide a framework that limits partisan overreach. Courts continue to serve as a vital safeguard against any administrative actions that might exceed statutory authority. Not nearly as much as some might imagine.
As these new secretaries of state prepare to inherit responsibilities regarding voter databases and result reporting, Merivaki believes they have an opportunity to demonstrate impartial leadership. She emphasizes that while the degree of partisanship among incumbents varies, the expectation remains that all election officials, regardless of party, must adhere to established state laws and procedural mandates.
Ultimately, the 2026 results highlight a growing focus on the administration of voting infrastructure. With the 2028 presidential race on the horizon, officials will need to address lingering issues such as the speed of reporting results and the maintenance of accurate electoral rolls. These administrative hurdles, however, are governed by systemic procedures that transcend individual leadership changes.
