Democrats score key secretary of state wins ahead of the 2028 election

A state secretary of state is commonly the chief official responsible for administering elections. Duties can include maintaining voter records, setting election procedures, certifying results, and guiding local election offices. Exact powers vary by state. The article presents the office as a key source of election oversight authority.

Georgia illustrates the political importance. Penny Brown Reynolds campaigned as a judge who would follow the law while standing up to President Donald Trump. In Michigan, Garlin Gilchrist criticized Republican challenger Anthony Forlini over sharing voter data with the Trump administration and hiring a Jan. 6 protester.

The office now receives far more attention than it once did. Secretaries of state in battlegrounds faced lawsuits, threats, and challenges to the 2020 results. Democratic victories in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio therefore affect who administers elections leading into 2028. The precise responsibilities still depend on each state’s law.

Democrats retained secretary of state control in Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada. They flipped the office in Georgia. Those four states have been central to recent presidential campaigns and faced challenges to the 2020 election results. The victories give Democrats election oversight authority in key states before the 2028 elections.

Democrats also gained the office in two Republican-leaning states. Allison Russo defeated Robert Sprague in Ohio, while Beau Bayh defeated Max Engling in Indiana. In Texas, Gina Hinojosa’s gubernatorial victory is expected to give Democrats authority over state election administration because the secretary of state is appointed by the governor.

Kansas remained too close to call, and Democrats lost secretary of state races in Iowa and South Carolina. Thus, the clearest completed secretary of state gains or holds span six states, four of them battlegrounds. Texas is a related appointment-based change, not an elected secretary victory.

When one party controls a secretary of state’s office, its elected official usually leads or influences statewide election administration. That can affect how election rules are implemented, how voter information is handled, how local offices are guided, and how results are certified. State law limits the office’s powers, so control is not unlimited.

Michigan provides a concrete example. Democratic Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist defeated Anthony Forlini after criticizing him for sharing voter data with the Trump administration and hiring a Jan. 6 protester. In Georgia, Penny Brown Reynolds defeated Trump-endorsed Tim Fleming after campaigning on following the law in running elections.

The immediate consequence is oversight in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio, with Texas expected to follow through its governor’s appointment power. These officials will administer elections amid continuing lawsuits, threats, and claims about fraud. Their decisions and public credibility may shape confidence before 2028.

Georgia was especially significant because its secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, became a central figure after rebuffing Trump’s push to overturn the state’s 2020 election results. The office therefore stood at the intersection of election administration, presidential politics, and continuing disputes over election legitimacy.

Democrat Penny Brown Reynolds defeated Tim Fleming, a state representative and former aide to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. Trump endorsed Fleming. Reynolds, known for a family court television show and Biden administration service, campaigned as a judge who would stand up to Trump while following the law. Fleming called for new mail voting restrictions and cited “irregularities.”

The result flips Georgia’s secretary of state office to Democrats. Georgia is one of four presidential battlegrounds where Democrats now won or retained election oversight authority. That gives the party influence over election administration in a state likely to remain important in the 2028 presidential contest.

Before the 2020 disputes, secretary of state contests were often low-profile, downballot races. The article says that changed after President Donald Trump and his allies repeatedly made unfounded election fraud claims. Secretaries of state became visible defenders, critics, or targets in fights over whether states should accept or overturn election results.

Georgia shows the pressure clearly. Brad Raffensperger rebuffed Trump’s effort to overturn Georgia’s 2020 results, drawing Trump’s ire. In the next contest, Trump endorsed Tim Fleming, while Penny Brown Reynolds campaigned as a judge who would stand up to Trump and follow the law. Arizona and Nevada also featured candidates rooted in election conspiracy theories.

The political effect has lasted beyond one election. Secretaries of state in battlegrounds and other states faced a steady stream of lawsuits and threats. Their offices now attract major campaign spending and national endorsements. The victories described in the article place Democrats in charge of election oversight across several important states before 2028.

Secretaries of state do not all reach office in the same way or exercise identical powers. In many states, voters elect them directly, making the office an independent statewide contest. State law determines whether they oversee elections, certify results, maintain voter systems, or share authority with local officials. The article emphasizes that election administration is organized differently across states.

Texas offers the clearest contrast. Its secretary of state is appointed by the governor, with concurrent terms. The article says Gina Hinojosa’s Democratic win in the governor’s race is expected to give Democrats authority over administering state elections, even though voters did not elect a Democratic secretary of state directly.

Elsewhere, Democrats won or retained elected secretary offices in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio. Kansas’s race was too close to call, while Republicans held Iowa and South Carolina. These outcomes show how election oversight can change through either a direct office victory or control of the appointing governor.

The article describes election administration as a state-level responsibility, with secretaries of state holding oversight authority and local election offices carrying out many tasks. There is no single national official running every election. This arrangement reflects the country’s federal system, in which states retain major responsibility for elections and set many operating rules.

The article shows how that structure works politically. Democrats won secretary of state contests in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio. Texas uses another model: its secretary of state is appointed by the governor. A change in Texas’s governor is therefore expected to change control of state election administration without a direct secretary election.

This decentralized system makes state races nationally important. Candidates can affect how election laws are administered, how voter data is handled, and how results are overseen, within legal limits. It also means procedures and leadership can differ from state to state. Ahead of 2028, those differences will matter in battlegrounds facing continued scrutiny.