Election Day underway after a surge in early voting, as Trump sows doubt on results

Midterm elections occur halfway through a president’s four-year term. They do not elect a president. Their biggest national consequence is deciding which party controls Congress. That power shapes lawmaking, investigations, budgets, and oversight during the president’s remaining term.

Voters choose all seats in the U.S. House and a portion of Senate seats. Many states also hold elections for governors, legislators, and local officials. The article specifically mentions competitive House races and a Senate race in Alaska, but it does not list every office on the ballot.

The 2026 midterms mattered because President Donald Trump’s party was trying to keep control of Congress. The results could determine whether his administration faces support or resistance from lawmakers. The article describes Election Day as the final day of voting after millions had already voted early.

Millions of Americans had already cast ballots before Election Day. The article does not provide an exact number, so the scale is clear but the precise total is not. Early participation was significant enough to shape how the final day of voting unfolded.

The article compares early turnout with the previous midterm elections. It says turnout was on pace to eclipse that earlier level. That means more people were expected to vote before or during Election Day than in the last midterm cycle, though no final percentage or total is given.

This high early-voting pace mattered because election officials were processing ballots while polling places opened. Despite President Trump’s claims about cheating, voting had experienced relatively few problems. Some issues remained, including machine trouble in Westchester County and weather disruptions in the Southwest.

Critics described several administration actions as attempts to influence election rules, voting, or the counting of results. The article says President Donald Trump tried to use presidential power to help his party retain control of Congress. It also says his administration repeatedly raised unsupported fears about election fraud.

The Justice and Homeland Security departments investigated alleged noncitizen voters, including a predawn California operation that produced more than two dozen arrests. The Justice Department planned extensive polling-place monitoring. At Trump’s urging, the administration sued to block certification of Alaska’s results if Democrats won the Senate race. It also issued executive orders seeking federal control over parts of elections.

Courts blocked many of these efforts before Election Day. Officials and Democratic groups prepared for possible immigration agents or federal officers at voting sites, though those feared actions had not occurred. The administration said armed federal officials would not guard polling places.

Courts blocked several administration efforts because they would have changed how states conduct elections or restricted ballots without the requested legal authority. The article emphasizes that the Constitution gives states, and sometimes Congress, power to set election rules. It also notes that research and state investigations find noncitizens casting ballots extremely rare.

The Supreme Court rejected the administration’s demand that California set aside thousands of ballots while officials searched for noncitizen voters. A federal judge separately ordered the administration to stop sending lists of alleged noncitizens to election officials. The Supreme Court had earlier rejected an attempt to limit mail voting through Postal Service changes.

These decisions meant the feared interventions had largely not occurred before Election Day. They also left states handling ballots under existing procedures. The rulings show how courts can stop executive actions when they conflict with election authority or threaten established voting processes.

When a candidate refuses to commit to accepting an election’s results, public trust can weaken before counting is complete. Supporters may doubt accurate totals, while election workers can face pressure to change or delay ordinary procedures. The vote count can become a political confrontation instead of a trusted process.

The article describes President Trump repeatedly making false claims about widespread voter fraud and sowing doubt about what would happen if Republicans lost. In response, election officials and Democratic groups prepared for possible immigration agents at voting sites or federal officers seizing voting machines. Courts also faced lawsuits involving ballots and certification.

The article does not report that voting machines were seized or that counting stopped. Instead, it says voting had proceeded with relatively few problems and that courts blocked many administration efforts. Continued challenges could still complicate certification and deepen uncertainty after polls close.

Election safeguards are designed to preserve a voter’s ballot when equipment, weather, or delivery problems interfere. They separate a temporary disruption from the loss of a vote. Officials can secure ballots, provide another voting method, relocate sites, or direct voters to safer delivery options.

In Westchester County, machines had trouble accepting paper ballots. Officials placed those ballots in emergency bags for later counting and said they would remain secure and monitored. In Utah’s rural San Juan County, voters could vote electronically because flooding might prevent travel. Navajo Nation officials also changed several polling locations.

The article advised voters mailing late absentee ballots to use drop boxes or deliver them to polling places. Heavy rain and flash flooding threatened access in parts of Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. These measures support continued voting while officials resolve equipment, transportation, or weather problems.

States generally control elections because the Constitution gives them authority to set election rules. This allows state governments to organize polling places, administer voting, and manage counting under their own election systems. The article also says Congress sometimes has authority over election rules.

That division explains why courts challenged parts of the Trump administration’s approach. During his second term, Trump signed two executive orders attempting to federalize certain election aspects. The administration also pursued lawsuits involving ballot handling, voter lists, mail voting, and certification. Courts largely blocked those efforts before Election Day.

The arrangement limits unilateral presidential control over elections. It does not mean federal institutions have no role: the article specifically recognizes powers held by Congress and describes federal departments monitoring or investigating election issues. The continuing implication is that major changes must respect constitutional authority and court rulings.