Election Reform in the States: Reviewing the 2026 Legislative Sessions

Vote-by-mail, citizenship verification/voter ID, and election certification have been three of the year's biggest election-policy issues.

As several state legislative sessions near their end, three issues related to election reform have been taking center stage. These reforms could significantly affect the way our elections are administered and how much work elections officers will be required to do.

Vote-by-Mail: Deadlines and Pre-Processing

Vote-by-mail has become a central part of the electoral process in several states while simultaneously becoming politically controversial. Lawmakers have been asking two significant questions regarding vote-by-Mail: when must a ballot be received, and when can officials start processing them? Earlier this year, the American Legislative Exchange Council produced a model piece of legislation addressing these exact queries. Legislation on these topics is currently under consideration in Iowa, New Jersey, and West Virginia.

On the first question, a growing number of states are considering a requirement that all ballots — regardless of how they are cast — be received by the time polls close on Election Day, rather than simply postmarked by that date. This is a reasonable standard. It aligns with a logical assumption of the rules and, importantly, it helps produce timely results. Delayed results create space for misinformation and irritate candidates and voters alike.

Clarifying ballot receipt deadlines is not enough. Equally important is allowing officials to pre-process mail ballots before Election Day — verifying signatures, confirming eligibility, and preparing ballots for tabulation — without actually counting them early. The 2020 election made the cost of restricting this painfully clear. States like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where officials could not begin processing until Election Day itself, watched vote counting drag on for days. This delay led to rampant rumors and misinformation, even though all ballots were legally cast. Administrators should have the tools to work efficiently, and legislatures would be wise to give them that flexibility.

Citizenship Verification and Voter ID

These two issues are frequently lumped together, but each has distinct administrative challenges.

It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, and voter roll audits consistently find that the number of ineligible registrants is very small, with actual attempts to vote even rarer. That said, there is genuine public interest in documented verification, and states are actively legislating on it. Arizona has long been at the forefront of citizenship verification for registration, with Utah passing legislation to adopt the Arizona model earlier this year. The key question is who bears the burden?

The best and most functional systems use existing government infrastructure — DMV databases, state and federal records — to verify citizenship on the back end, rather than placing requirements on voters at the registration desk. Rules that allow election officials to accept any valid ID that proves who someone is make the process smoother and less partisan.

Showing identification at the polls is also broadly popular, and 36 states have adopted some version of it. The case for voter ID is modest but real: it serves as a visible identity check that verifies the voter is who they say they are prior to granting them access to the electoral process. What it does not do, according to the evidence, is significantly suppress turnout or meaningfully reduce fraud, both of which remain rare. However, legislative efforts to excessively narrow the acceptable forms of ID, such as banning student IDs or out of state driver’s licenses, risk politicizing what should be a common sense process.

Election Certification

Certification has gone from a routine administrative step to a contested one since 2020, with more than 30 officials in various states refusing to certify results. Much of this stems from a basic misunderstanding of what certification is.

Certification merely marks the end of vote counting and allows the process to move forward. It is not an investigation, not an endorsement, and not a forum for contesting results. Those functions belong to the courts and legal processes that actually have the tools to examine evidence and issue binding decisions. When state law is vague about this, it puts administrators in an impossible position. They are asked to make judgment calls under political pressure with no clear legal guidance. Proposals that encourage officials to withhold certification based on subjective concerns about irregularities are not a check on the system, but a way of turning a routine step into a manufactured crisis.

The solution to this problem is clear: any state law should clearly spell out that certification is the administrative confirmation that counting is complete, and nothing more. One notable proposal in Virginia would clearly define an election administrator’s duties and discourage them from making rogue decisions.

Conclusion

Good policy in all three of these areas is dependent on clear, actionable direction for election administrators and minimal burden for voters. These are key to protecting the right to vote and ensuring trust in the results.