Photo credit: abcnews.go.com
ATLANTA — The recent executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which aims to alter the administration of U.S. elections, has led to heightened uncertainty among state and local election officials and has raised concerns about potential voter confusion leading up to the 2026 midterm elections.
As election administrators navigate the complexities of the current political climate, they are already facing challenges such as the diminished federal cybersecurity assistance. The president’s new directives introduce significant changes, including a requirement for voter registration proof, the decertification of certain voting equipment, and tighter deadlines for ballot submissions across various states.
In Connecticut, Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas has expressed concern over the implications of these changes for election infrastructure. The state invested $20 million in new ballot scanners, but she is uncertain whether they will meet the new standards set by the executive order. “States don’t have the financial flexibility to routinely upgrade their equipment,” Thomas noted. “What happens to those who have already invested in new systems?”
Given the possibility of legal disputes surrounding this order, election officials are left in a state of ambiguity regarding required compliance timelines. Joseph Kirk, who oversees elections in Bartow County, Georgia, has voiced anxiety, stating, “I urgently require clarity to better serve my voters.”
In the executive order, Trump criticized the capabilities of election officials and lauded the practices of other nations regarding election integrity. His long-standing skepticism regarding U.S. electoral processes has been evident since his presidency, where he inaccurately asserted that his 2016 loss of the popular vote was partly due to noncitizen voting in states like California.
Moreover, Trump continues to assert his belief that his 2020 election defeat was the result of widespread fraud, despite comprehensive evaluations in various states affirming the legitimacy of the results. These investigations have found no substantial evidence supporting claims of manipulated voting systems.
Since Trump’s loss, election officials have increasingly faced challenges, including harassment and a flood of public information requests from skeptical factions, as well as legislative measures designed to curb perceived election vulnerabilities.
Further complicating matters, Trump’s executive order also courses through a backdrop of recent announcements from his administration which indicated a halt on certain cybersecurity initiatives and a withdrawal of funding for an information-sharing network vital to election safety, amplifying fears over the federal government’s future role in elections.
“States are charged with running elections, but they depend on the federal government for critical support,” stated Larry Norden, an election security expert at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Building trust with election officials requires consistency from the federal level. Recent actions have shattered that trust.”
A significant shift proposed in the executive order mandates that voters must provide documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship to register, a move historically championed by congressional Republicans at Trump’s behest, yet stalled due to Democratic opposition last year.
House Republicans are scheduled to revisit this issue through the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, known as the SAVE Act, in an upcoming committee meeting.
Reaction to the executive order has varied by party affiliation; several Republican officials praised new provisions aimed at helping states determine voter eligibility, whereas their Democratic counterparts voiced skepticism.
Voting rights organizations have expressed apprehensions regarding the citizenship verification stipulation, emphasizing that millions lack ready access to birth certificates or U.S. passports. Additionally, women who have changed their names may face added documentation challenges.
While instances of noncitizen voting occur, they represent a minuscule share of total ballots and are typically unintentional rather than malicious. The repercussions of such actions can be severe, leading to felony charges or deportation. Implementing the proposed citizenship proof requirement would impose financial burdens on election officials, who currently lack the necessary federal resources to bear this responsibility.
“This order is establishing a daunting new bureaucracy across states for managing voter eligibility data,” explained David Becker, a former Justice Department lawyer and director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “It’s an extensive process that cannot happen overnight.”
In Indiana, election administrator Kate Sweeney Bell expects minimal disruption in her jurisdiction due to existing stringent voting laws. However, she worries about how the substantial public education effort required for the broader implications of these changes may strain other areas of the country less accustomed to such restrictions.
“States without significant barriers are likely to face tough challenges in adapting to new requirements,” Sweeney Bell noted.
A critical concern is that prolonged legal disputes could further obstruct understanding for election officials and voters alike.
“Without clear regulations, voter confusion is inevitable, damaging public trust in electoral processes and outcomes,” stated Ryan Macias, an expert in election security and systems.
As preparations ramp up for the 2026 elections, officials anticipate extensive planning and training will be vital. Dean Logan, who administers elections in Los Angeles County, emphasized that operational effectiveness hinges on clear standards and readiness rather than abrupt changes.
“Unilateral mandates can significantly complicate operations, increasing the potential for voter misunderstanding and diminishing confidence in the election process,” Logan warned.
Additionally, Trump’s order may compel counties to replace voting machinery without accompanying financial support. The provisions prompt the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to revise voting systems standards, eliminating devices that utilize barcodes or QR codes, while making exceptions for accessibility-focused technologies.
This directive requires a review of voting equipment standards, but experts stress that adhering to federal laws regarding procedural updates and public commentary is essential.
Transitioning to compliant voting systems is complex and time-consuming, according to Mark Lindeman from Verified Voting. States must seek approval for expenditures, follow procurement protocols, and train personnel, all of which require significant time and planning to effectively implement.
“The timeline for potentially upgraded systems raises concerns about manufacturers’ ability to meet heightened demand,” Lindeman explained, noting that urgent shifts across states could overwhelm supplier capacities.
Source
abcnews.go.com