They Believe 2020 Was Stolen. They Could Be in Charge of Elections in 2028

The article identifies Republican attorney general candidates who supported claims that the 2020 election was stolen or deserved renewed investigation. The named candidates are Warren Petersen in Arizona, Brian Strickland in Georgia, and Kris Kobach in Kansas. Their positions matter because attorneys general are powerful state legal officers who can influence election enforcement and defend or challenge government actions.

Petersen signed documents seeking alternate electoral votes for Donald Trump and helped secure the Cyber Ninjas audit. Strickland shared a statement calling for a fraud investigation and forensic audit in Georgia. Kobach has promoted election-fraud theories for years, including claims about noncitizens on Kansas voter rolls.

The article also mentions Republican candidates in Michigan and Nevada, but it provides no names or individual details in the supplied text. Petersen and Strickland were described as competitive with their Democratic opponents. Petersen has also suggested expanding Arizona's Election Integrity Unit, potentially reopening disputes about 2020.

A state attorney general is generally the state's chief legal officer. The office represents the state's legal interests and can act as a check on both the governor and the federal government. Its precise responsibilities differ from state to state, so no single description covers every attorney general's election powers.

In the article, attorneys general are shown defending election administration and resisting federal efforts to take control of elections, seize ballots, or obtain sensitive voter rolls. They may also oversee or influence election-related investigations and legal challenges. Petersen, for example, called for expanding Arizona's Election Integrity Unit.

That authority makes the office important during presidential elections. An attorney general can support election officials, challenge federal actions, or pursue investigations into past results. The article argues that whoever holds the office should uphold the rule of law and respect election results rather than use the position to relitigate settled claims.

WIRED identified Republican attorney general candidates who have expressed belief in stolen-election claims in more than half a dozen states. The article focuses on races that could matter because attorneys general may influence election law, enforcement, and responses to federal action. Several candidates have said they could revisit the 2020 election if elected.

The states specifically examined are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Kansas. Arizona and Georgia receive the most detail in the supplied text. Warren Petersen is running in Arizona, while Brian Strickland is the Republican nominee in Georgia. Both races are described as competitive with Democratic opponents.

The article calls Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada key swing states. Kansas is included even though it is not described as a swing state, because Kris Kobach is already serving as attorney general and is running again. The candidates could influence the 2028 presidential election.

The Cyber Ninjas audit was promoted as a review of the 2020 vote in Maricopa County, Arizona. Despite the surrounding fraud allegations, it found no evidence of voter fraud. Its significance is especially striking because the review did not validate the claims used to justify it.

Warren Petersen was central to getting the audit approved. Cyber Ninjas, the company that ran it, ultimately reported that Joe Biden had won Maricopa County by more votes than originally thought. The process therefore strengthened, rather than overturned, the reported result.

The audit also imposed a major public cost. The article states that it cost taxpayers $4 million. Petersen later complied with a grand jury subpoena and gave the FBI files connected to the audit as part of its investigation into the 2020 election in Maricopa. The episode remains relevant because Petersen has signaled interest in expanding election investigations.

The candidates challenged the 2020 result through formal political demands and calls for investigations. These efforts sought to cast doubt on certified outcomes or create new processes that could revisit them. Their actions mattered because election certifications depend on officials accepting the results produced by state voting systems.

In Arizona, Warren Petersen signed a document asking Congress to accept 11 alternate electoral votes for Donald Trump. He later signed another demand that the US Senate reject Arizona's slate of electors. He also helped secure the Cyber Ninjas audit and later called for expanding the state's Election Integrity Unit.

In Georgia, Brian Strickland shared a release urging officials to consider investigating alleged fraud, conducting a forensic audit, and changing voting laws. Kris Kobach promoted broader theories about fraudulent elections. The article does not describe Kobach attempting to replace Kansas's certified electors, so that claim should not be attributed to him here.

Using an attorney general's office to relitigate 2020 could redirect state legal resources toward claims already examined and rejected. It could also place election officials under repeated investigations and create uncertainty about whether certified results will be respected. The article presents this as a rule-of-law concern because the office is powerful and election administration needs legal stability.

The Maricopa audit illustrates the mechanism. It found no voter fraud and showed Biden's margin was larger than first reported, yet it cost taxpayers $4 million. In Georgia, federal officials seized 2020 ballots from Fulton County, and Brian Strickland called the action a transparency measure.

If attorneys general support efforts to seize ballots or obtain sensitive voter rolls, election offices could face disrupted operations and privacy risks. The article says attorneys general have recently resisted such federal efforts. Future officeholders could instead help defend state control, or use their authority to reopen disputes before the 2028 election.

The article does not directly explain the historical or constitutional reason for America's state-based election system. Established US election structure provides that context: states generally organize elections, set many voting procedures, and certify results, while federal law and courts impose national requirements. This division leaves substantial authority with state governments.

That arrangement helps explain why state attorneys general matter. They are their states' chief legal officers and can act as a check on governors and the federal government. Their offices may defend state election systems, challenge federal actions, or support investigations, depending on state law and the official's choices.

The article emphasizes that responsibilities differ from state to state. It also describes federal efforts involving election control, ballots, and voter rolls, alongside state attorneys general who have resisted them. Without one national election authority handling every step, state-level legal decisions can shape election administration and responses to presidential disputes.