As power in Congress hangs in the balance, all eyes will be on the two crucial states where races will be decided by a voting method that's no different than listing your top ice cream flavors.

Ranked choice voting (RCV) will be used in the congressional and state races in Maine and Alaska again this year. People in those states will have the opportunity to have their ballot count towards the person with the majority of votes, even if they strongly prefer a third party candidate.

Under RCV rules, voters rank their candidates in order of preference, first, second third, etc. If no candidate gets a majority of No. 1 rankings, votes are transferred from the candidate with the least top rankings to the other candidates based on who was ranked second, third and so on.

"The thinking is that even if my favorite candidate has no chance of winning, I can put my support and vote for someone who I also think is good," Ismar Volić, the director for the Institute for Mathematics and Democracy at Wellesley College who has been researching RCV for years, told ABC News.

Although the system has been in place in Maine since 2018 and in Alaska for the last four years, it has generated huge debates over its effectiveness and learning curve.

Opposition from elected officials has risen over the last few years, with 19 states banning the practice. Voters in Alaska will decide in a ballot question if they will join that list on Nov. 3.

Volić and other political and mathematical researchers stressed that as this debate continues across electorates, it is essential to look at the pros and cons of RCV and how it addresses the concerns from voters.

How it works

Unlike standard voting, where people are mandated to choose one candidate on their ballot, RCV asks the electorate to rank the candidates in order of preference. Voters can choose to only rank one candidate on their ballot.

If one of the candidates gets more than 50% of the No. 1 rankings, they win the election.

If no candidate gets more than 50%, the race goes into an instant runoff.

In that scenario, the ballots are re-examined and the candidates with the fewest No. 1 rankings are eliminated. The votes from those eliminated candidates are then transferred to the candidate that the voter ranked as No. 2 on their ballot.

If the voter did not rank more than one candidate and only chose the eliminated person, their votes are not transferred. Their ballot is still valid, however, and their vote for the eliminated candidate is still recorded.

If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote after the elimination and vote transfer, the process restarts and continues until one candidate gets the majority.

Electorates that use the system tally the votes with computer programs. This usually happens quickly, with most tallying the runoff rounds that night.

How has RCV affected elections

David McCune, a professor of mathematics at William Jewell College who has researched RCV for a decade, told ABC News that the biggest effect of the voting method is the diminishing role of a spoiler candidate.

For example, in the 2014 Maine governor's race Republican Paul LePage won with under 50% of the vote in a race among LePage, Democrat Mike Michaud and independent candidate Eliot Cutler.

With RCV, voters who choose a third-party candidate as their top choice can also rank another candidate who aligns with their views and thus ultimately help select a candidate who represents their beliefs, according to McCune. The end result is a victor who represents a bigger majority of the electorate, he said.

"The evidence points to the fact that elections become more competitive when you switch to RCV," McCune told ABC News.

David Kimball, a professor of political science at the University of Missouri at St. Louis who has studied RCV, told ABC News that candidates have also changed their campaign tactics, to shore up all of those no. 2 and no. 3 rankings.

Mudslinging and negativity end up hurting a candidate in a RCV race as it turns voters off, according to Kimball.

He pointed to the 2025 New York Democratic mayoral primary where then-State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani and then-City Comptroller Brad Lander crossed endorsed each other and encouraged their supporters to rank the other candidate second on their ballots.

In the final round of RCV tallying, Mamdani received the majority of Lander's 120,634 transfer votes that he accumulated before he was eliminated and went on to beat former Gov. Andrew Cuomo by more than 130,000 votes, according to election data.

"It can only help your candidate if they are seeking second or third choice endorsements," Kimball said.

Volić noted that while RCV does minimize the effect of a spoiler candidate, it does not outright eliminate them. He noted the 2022 special election for Alaska's sole congressional seat where former Gov. Sarah Palin was up against Democrat Mary Peltola and Republican Nick Begich.

Palin ended up splitting the first-round votes and, even though she received more of Beich's transfer votes, Peltola edged out to surpass the 50% threshold and won the election.

"This type of spoiler event is very rare in RCV," Volić, who has analyzed data from over 1,000 RCV U.S. elections, said.

The researchers noted that Begich went on to win the seat in 2024 election, after he beat Peltola in the third round of RCV runoffs.

Volić warned that the polarization in current politics has led to more misinformation and misunderstandings about the system.

Where it's used, where it's banned

As of October 2026, approximately 10.3 million voters in 14 cities and Maine and Alaska use RCV for their elections, according to data from The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, a non-partisan non profit that provides resources on RCV.

In this year's midterms, roughly 3.9 million voters will cast a RCV ballot for congressional, state and local elections, according to the center.

Maine voters adopted RCV for their congressional races in a state referendum in 2018, two years after a similar referendum passed for Maine's state elections. Alaska voters adopted RCV for local, state and federal races in the 2020 election. 

Since Alaska made the change, however, some states have passed measures that have banned RCV. Eighteen state legislatures, including Alabama, Florida and Ohio, passed laws that banned the process between 2022 and 2026. Voters in Missouri passed a ballot measure to ban the process in 2024.

McCune said RCV's role in major elections, such as last year's New York City Democratic primary and the 2022 Alaska special election, has sparked the conversations but a lot of the details of the method are getting lost in the discussion.

"The problem is because of the polarization in politics… the pros and cons of RCV aren't being emphasized by politicians," McCune said.

RCV's fate in Alaska

In 2024, a ballot initiative championed by state Republicans was given to voters asking them to repeal RCV. The measure lost by just 743 votes, or 0.24 percentage points of the total vote, according to election data.

A similar measure has been put in place for this year's election and various Republican leaders, including Begich and Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, have publicly pushed for its repeal.

Their calls have been amplified by President Donald Trump.

"We have the Corrupt Ranked Choice System of Voting, which shouldn’t be allowed in our Country and will, hopefully, be repealed in the November Vote," he said in an Oct. 8 social media post.

Trump claimed, without evidence, that the system is a "Democrat scam" during an Oct. 14 rally in Alaska and insinuated that it's a "way to cheat."

There is no evidence in any U.S. RCV election that shows that the system benefited one party over another, according to election data compiled and analyzed by Volić and McCune.

McCune said there are examples where one candidate would have won an election through standard plurality voting with a lower percentage of the total vote, but that only because of a split ticket by an independent candidate.

"For example, in Maine you would often see one Republican, one Democrat and one independent on the ticket but the independent was close to the Democrat ideologically," he said. "In a ranked choice election, those votes for the independent would likely transfer to the Democrat. That same dynamic plays out in other places where an independent candidate was closer to Republican ideologically."

The researchers said that polarization has stymied RCV research and the public's understanding, but they stressed that voters should focus on the mechanics of the system while forming an opinion.

"When you design a voting system, you want to design it to make sure it incentivizes voters to cast their true opinion," McCune said. "And you want your opinion to be supported with the facts."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Voters in six states on Nov. 3 will decide whether to approve ballot measures that would amend their state constitutions or state law to make U.S. citizenship a requirement for voting.

The closely watched popular referenda reflect a push by President Donald Trump to crackdown on noncitizen voting based on unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud.

Voting-rights advocates warn they also raise the potential of sidelining millions of eligible American voters. 

"Rather than strengthening democracy, [the amendments are] a political maneuver designed to justify future rollbacks of voting rights," said Rashane Hamby with the ACLU of Kansas in testimony last year.

Federal and state laws already prohibit noncitizens from voting in any federal or statewide election, but advocates for the constitutional amendments say even more protection is needed. 

"Law can change, as we know,” said West Virginia state Sen. Patricia Rucker, a Republican, at a press conference last month. "This proposed amendment would ensure that no future legislature could just simply change the election law with only a bill."

No state constitution currently includes a citizenship requirement for voting. Five states -- Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota and West Virginia -- have amendments on the ballot. An Alaska initiative would create a new state law.

Of particular concern to some supporters: major cities in three states plus the District of Columbia that do allow some noncitizens to lawfully participate in local elections.

"There's nothing that magically stops those bad ideas at that state's borders," said Arkansas state Rep. David Ray in a news conference last month.

Many civil rights groups and nonpartisan voter advocates fear the measures -- and accompanying regulations requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote -- could disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans.

Jemmie Lolita Pepper of Indiana, a former public-school educator who was born on U.S. soil but spent decades unable to prove it, says she empathizes with both sides of the debate. 

"I understand the desire to require proof so there won't be voter fraud or anything like that. I truly support that: no voter fraud,” said Pepper, 63, in an interview. "But for those of us who had to live years of not having [any documentation], you couldn’t prove it. I couldn't."

With pro bono legal help, Pepper recently untangled a series of clerical errors in state records -- including a misspelling of her first name and faulty substitution of her last name -- that had prevented her from obtaining an official government ID and, in turn, casting a ballot. She now has one.

"They had my name listed as the boys' spelling, J-I-M-M-I-E," Pepper recalled of her legal odyssey. "I said, 'Well that’s still me. That's still me.'"

An estimated 21.3 million Americans -- or 9% of all eligible voters -- are unable to readily present documentation proving they are citizens because of misplaced or inaccessible records, financial hardship putting replacement fees out of reach, name changes from divorce or remarriage, and clerical errors in state databases, according to a 2025 study by the University of Maryland. 

Only 48% of Americans have a valid passport as of 2023, according to the State Department.

Some voting-rights advocates say a proof-of-citizenship requirement would hit elderly, disabled and rural voters particularly hard.

"I’ve been through SCUD missiles, riots, sniper fire. To be unable to keep it together navigating all these processes makes me ashamed to say, but it would be really difficult," said Symmone Ford of Michigan, a 56-year-old Gulf War veteran with severe PTSD who has difficulty leaving her home.

"I can’t afford the money for a lawyer to change my name. I barely have enough to pay my bills," said Ford, whose last name does not currently match her birth certificate because of several marriages and divorces.

Additional paperwork requirements for voter registration could effectively shut down online access, some experts said. Even when people do have proper documentation, many may lack access to copiers, notaries and scanners to submit electronically. 

Nine states currently have laws requiring state officials to verify a voter's citizenship status either by looking at documentary proof at time of registration, reviewing voter registration history, or cross-checking with other government databases, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Federal law requires voters in all states to attest with a signature -- under threat of imprisonment -- that they are, in fact, U.S. citizens when they sign up for a ballot.

Still, 83% of Americans, according to Gallup, say people registering to vote for the first time should have to provide documentation to show that they are eligible citizens.

Efforts by Trump and his Republican allies to institute a nationwide proof-of-citizenship standard stalled in Congress earlier this year and later got blocked by federal courts when he attempted to impose it by executive order. 

An online tracker of major public claims of noncitizen voting compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research shows cases of noncitizen voting are extremely rare.

In Michigan, for example, the state attorney general identified 38 credible cases of noncitizen voting in the 2024 general election out of roughly 5.7 million votes cast. That's 0.0000066% of total votes cast. 

Six of the Michigan cases have resulted in criminal charges, while 10 were closed without charges and 22 are still under review, according to state officials. 

Eighteen states did not publicly disclose finding or removing any noncitizen from a voter registration list in the 2024 election, and no state uncovered any coordinated effort to get noncitizens to vote, according to CEIR records. 

President Trump and the Department of Justice continue to push unsubstantiated claims of widespread noncitizen voting as the basis for tighter voter registration rules and ballot segregation in several states, including California and Washington.  

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously struck down efforts to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to federal voter registration forms. Later this year, in a major case from Arizona, the justices will decide whether states can mandate proof-of-citizenship on state forms and for voting in state races. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Alaska Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola denied that she knew about an effort to recruit a candidate to be on the Alaska ballot with the same name as the Republican incumbent, Sen. Dan Sullivan.

"I just want to clear the air. I knew nothing about any other candidates on the ballot except for me and the incumbent. That is all I have ever known about," Peltola said during a rally in Juneau, Alaska, on Thursday, according to an Associated Press video.

ABC News has asked the Peltola campaign to clarify whether she is denying knowledge of the reported recruitment effort to find a spoiler candidate.

Peltola later added, "I am not interested in tricking voters. I know I can beat Dan Sullivan."

Peltola's comments, just days before the high-stakes midterm elections, come after a New York Times report Wednesday that her campaign and senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee played a role in recruiting Dan J. Sullivan -- a Republican who almost has the same name as incumbent Sen. Sullivan -- as part of an effort to sow confusion and ultimately benefit Peltola's campaign.

At a separate campaign event on Thursday, Peltola called the New York Times' report "just another distraction."

"It's another diversion. Every day, it's some new, you know, 'look over here' moment,” Peltola said in a social media video verified by ABC News.

Peltola’s campaign earlier this week told ABC News that it "has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign." Former Peltola staffer Elisa Rios told the Times about the reported recruitment effort, saying Peltola wasn't directly involved but that she was "definitely aware."

ABC News reached out to Dan J. Sullivan's campaign for comment on the New York Times' report earlier this week, but has not heard back.

Alaska courts evaluated the dispute over Dan J. Sullivan's candidacy and found nothing illegal about his bid to be on the ballot -- even if it was not entirely in "good faith" or an attempt to "confuse and mislead" as the Trump administration and Republicans contend. 

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump, who has claimed Pelota has committed "election fraud," said Alaskans would need to have a "190 IQ" to understand the ballot with two Dan Sullivans, despite the ballot's clear distinctions between the two candidates' names and other distinctive marks like party affiliation and incumbency.

On the general election ballot, Sen. Sullivan is listed as Dan S. Sullivan, a registered Republican, and it is noted that he is the incumbent. The other Sullivan is listed as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. with no party affiliation.

"You need about 190 IQ to figure out the ballot. They put a ballot down where they're talking about incumbent Republican and the other one. Most people don't know in Alaska, in a lot of other states too, what does incumbent mean? They don't know what incumbent means," Trump said when he called into Kansas City's KMCO "Mundo in the Morning."

Peltola won the primary by a larger margin than adding Dan J. Sullivan in could have made up for: 48% to 2%, respectively; Sen. Sullivan earned 43% of the vote in the primary.

The Justice Department has begun issuing a new wave of subpoenas stemming from an ongoing criminal probe of Democrats' alleged efforts to recruit Dan J. Sullivan, multiple sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. The Trump administration filed a separate civil lawsuit last week seeking an injunction against the state certifying the results of its election in the event Sen. Sullivan narrowly loses, which a federal judge is expected to rule on in the coming days. 

GOP Sen. Sullivan on Thursday criticized Democrats' alleged efforts to recruit another Dan Sullivan in the Senate race. Sen. Sullivan, on Fox News, claimed Peltola's campaign ran a "secret operation to put a fake Dan Sullivan on the ballot with the primary purpose, the only purpose, to trick Alaskans."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The Department of Justice on Thursday issued grand jury subpoenas to local election officials in California as part of its criminal investigation into the state's voter rolls, multiple sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. The move escalates the Trump administration's clash with states over how elections are run just days before the midterm elections.

The subpoenas come as part of the administration's effort to prove its claims that California has thousands of noncitizens on its voter rolls.

Some employees with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's office received grand jury subpoenas last week, which demand their testimony on Nov. 4, the day after the election.

Those subpoenas, which have been reviewed by ABC News, also ask for any internal documents or communications about the federal government's requests to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber for information about "noncitizen voting" along with any information or records "relating to or involving your agency's methods for screening for unlawful voting by aliens."

Earlier this month, DOJ threatened to criminally prosecute election workers who knowingly tabulate ballots belonging to noncitizen voters. In a letter to Los Angeles officials, Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter wrote that "noncitizen voting in a federal election is a federal crime -- and knowingly facilitating such conduct is equally unlawful."

The New York Times first reported on the subpoenas to election officials in California.

In an order Wednesday, a federal judge in California rejected DOJ's push for an emergency order to have California segregate roughly 20,000 ballots belonging to individuals the Trump administration has claimed are "likely" noncitizens.

"Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch," U.S. District Judge David Carter wrote in his Wednesday order. 

"Judge Carter's admonishment about threats directed at election officials on Tuesday was well placed and appreciated. At every step, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken a confrontational, adversarial approach. Election officials are acting in accordance with state and federal law," Dean Logan, the L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk said in a statement to ABC News.

"Clear court rulings at both the U.S. District Court level and the Court of Appeals have confirmed that. Threats and intimidation have no place in elections. We will take whatever steps necessary to ensure the safety of our employees and to remain focused on serving the voters of Los Angeles County so they can exercise their voting franchise," he said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice said: "The Department of Justice does not comment on leaks about alleged grand jury subpoenas."

The statement added: "But to be clear, the district court judge explained that voting unlawfully results in criminal exposure. Consistent with this, California also wrote in its filing that the remedy for unlawful voting is through criminal prosecution. Thus, while DOJ maintains that a civil remedy is still available, all agree that noncitizen voting is properly addressed through criminal law."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy is ordering an investigation into an effort to recruit candidates for the state's Senate race, including one with the same name as the incumbent Republican senator, following a New York Times report on the matter.

In a statement, Dunleavy said the report revealed new evidence of an organized effort to manipulate Alaska's elections by recruiting candidates he said were intended to confuse voters and misdirect their votes.

The Alaska Division of Elections investigated similar concerns in June, Dunleavy said, adding that the new reporting substantially supported the division's findings.

Dunleavy said he was directing the state's Department of Public Safety to investigate whether the effort violated Alaska law and whether criminal charges or civil action were warranted.

“The evidence will determine what happens next,” he said.

“Alaskans have a fundamental right to vote for the candidate they actually intend to support,” Dunleavy said. “Deliberately tricking voters into casting their ballots for someone else strikes at the integrity of our elections.”

He added that anyone or any organization found to have broken the law “must be held accountable.”

The Times report said it relied on 12 sources, text messages and documents that allegedly showed members of Peltola's campaign, lawyers for Peltola and senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) contributed to pushing Dan J. Sullivan, a Republican on Alaska's four-way ballot, to run.

The Times said the effort to find a spoiler candidate -- who could potentially siphon votes from Sen. Sullivan and benefit Peltola -- was internally referred to as the ballot composition project.

Alaskans for Mary, the campaign committee for Peltola, said through a spokesperson on Wednesday that it "has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign."

The DSCC told ABC News in a statement that it was "not involved with Dan J. Sullivan."

"Republicans have a long history of recruiting and propping up candidates in an attempt to boost their own campaigns," a DSCC spokesperson wrote in the statement.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

While the spotlight on the upcoming midterm elections has been on the balance of power in Congress, several states and cities around the country have ballot measures under consideration that could have ripple effects for years.

From transgender rights to taxation on high earners, here are some of the major ballot proposals that voters will consider on Election Day.

Voter access

Voters in 13 states have ballot initiatives that would affect voter access and rights.

California, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina and Arizona would impose voter identification laws under a ballot measure.

Nevada voters passed their voter measure with 73% of the vote in 2024, however, the state constitution requires ballot measure approval in two consecutive elections to pass.

Noncitizens are not eligible under federal law to vote in elections, but most states do not explicitly state this mandate in their constitutions or laws. Alaska, Arizona, South Dakota, Kansas, Arkansas and West Virginia have ballot measures that would mandate only U.S. citizens can vote in any elections administered in the state.

Some Republican leaders have pushed back against noncitizens voting in elections, however, there are few proven cases of this taking place in previous elections. 

Two states have proposals that would expand voter access.

In Massachusetts, voters will decided whether or not to implement same-day voter registration on Election Day. A ballot measure in Virginia would restore voting rights to some incarcerated citizens after they are released from prison.

Gender and sex issues

The debate over gender rights and transgender issues is on the ballot in several states.

In four states -- Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska and Washington -- voters will decide on ballot measures that would prohibit participants from playing on teams that are different from their sex assigned at birth.

Washington's ballot measure would mandate students who compete on female sports teams provide healthcare documentation verifying their sex.

Voters in Colorado and Missouri are set to vote on measures that would prohibit minors from receiving gender transition surgeries or healthcare professionals from providing the surgeries.

Taxation

As affordability and income inequality have become leading concerns among Americans, some states are seeking to address that through taxation.

In five states, California, Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado and Washington, voters will choose how their state's tax laws will change.

California has four propositions related to taxation with Proposition 40 -- also known as the "billionaires' tax" -- being the one that has come under the most scrutiny. If that proposition passes, the state would levy a 5% tax on the wealth of California taxpayers and trusts with assets valued over $1 billion.

The revenue would go to pay for state healthcare programs, food assistance programs and public education.

Colorado's ballot proposal would remove the state's uniform tax rate requirement and replace it with a progressive tax that would levy different levels of tax based on income levels.

State taxpayers who make less than $25,000 annually would be taxed 3.7% and those percentage levels would rise with the maximum being 8.4% levied on anyone earning more than $1 million annually.

Washington state voters will decide whether or not to repeal its 9.9% tax on taxpayers who make over $1 million annually.

Reproductive rights

States continue to grapple with the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, leaving laws and regulations around it up to individual states.

In this year's election, voters in four states will decide on reproductive laws.

Virginia, Idaho and Nevada would enshrine laws that would give people the right to make their own reproductive rights decisions and privacy over those decisions.

Voters in Missouri are voting to repeal a 2024 initiative that enshrined a constitutional right for reproductive freedom.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

A top general at the Pentagon was suddenly removed from his senior post earlier this week and has now retired, according to two sources familiar with the situation.

Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia served in the Joint Staff as the Joint Staff's Director for Strategy, Plans & Policy, an important office, that handles long-term strategic planning and is known in military jargon as the J-5.

Sylvia was removed from the position for a lack of confidence, according to one of the sources.  With his removal Sylvia retired from the U.S. Army after having served in the role for 11 months.

Sylvia becomes the latest senior military officer to be either fired or sidelined during Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's tenure.  However, one source said it was unclear whether Sylvia's removal was ordered by Hegseth or Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The Chairman, the Joint Staff, and the Joint Force extend our deepest gratitude to Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia and his family for their 32 years of distinguished service to our nation," said a Joint Staff spokesperson.

"We wish him and his family the best as they graduate to new opportunities and the next chapters of their lives," the spokesman added.

Earlier this week, Sylvia was listed as still being the director of the planning office on the Joint Staff's website, but the website now lists only the name of Vice Director Maj. Gen. Mark H. Slocum.

The J-5 is recognized as one of the Joint Staff's most important directorates in the Joint Staff along with the directorate for Operations, the J-3, that is responsible for the planning and execution of military operations.

Last year, two prominent Army generals serving on the Joint Staff were sidelined and had to retire early, including Sylvia's immediate predecessor as the J-5, Lt. Gen. Joseph "JP" McGee, who retired last October. 

McGee had been nominated under the Biden administration to become the director of the Joint Staff, but he was not renominated by the Trump administration.  With no other slots available to him as a three or four star general he had to retire. 

Also retiring early last year was Lt. Gen. Douglas Sims, the director of the Joint Staff, who was widely expected to be on track for a fourth star.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

A federal judge in California has rejected the Justice Department's push for an emergency order to have California segregate roughly 20,000 ballots belonging to individuals the Trump administration has claimed are "likely" noncitizens. 

"Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch," U.S. District Judge David Carter wrote in his Wednesday order.

Regarding the DOJ request for the order to require California to set aside the ballots of those it alleges are likely noncitizens, the judge said it would "wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway, create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens."

The judge wrote: "This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections. If Plaintiff's last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process. Over 20,000 registered Californians would potentially lose the right that generations of Americans have fought to preserve." 

Earlier this month, the DOJ filed suit against California accusing the state of failing to review a list of alleged noncitizens that the Trump administration claimed were sent mail-in ballots for next month's midterm election. 

In a court hearing earlier this week, Bill Essayli, a controversial Trump-installed leader of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Central District of California, argued the administration was simply pushing for the state to be in compliance with federal law barring noncitizens from casting votes. 

But state officials and other legal advocates opposing the DOJ lawsuit countered that the litigation violated longstanding Constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections -- and could have chaotic consequences for the state in tabulating final vote counts in the weeks ahead. 

In court papers filed last week, Los Angeles officials said a preliminary analysis of 200 of the names on the 20,000-person list, included a "high percentage" of individuals who say they were born in the U.S. and many more who have no voting history at all. 

Earlier this week, in a 2-1 decision, a federal appeals court panel also rejected a DOJ request for an immediate order demanding California segregate the roughly 20,000 mail-in ballots. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

With less than a week to the midterms elections, an ABC News analysis of the early vote in the key states of Texas and Georgia shows signs of more enthusiasm among Democrats, who are getting slightly higher turnout among those who don't vote regularly -- particularly in Texas -- compared to what they got in 2022.

More than 39 million Americans have voted early as of Wednesday afternoon, according to the Election Lab at the University of Florida.

Much of the apparent surge in turnout is among voters who likely would have voted later in the pre-election period or on Election Day, the analysis shows. Less-habitual voters who are voting early, while a much smaller number compared to regular voters, appear to be more likely to vote for the Democrat.

The data from voter records firm L2 that ABC News' analysis is based on does not indicate who someone might have voted for and does not say anything about who might yet turn out on Election Day.

The analysis also uses L2's models for whether a voter is likely to vote Democratic or Republican, as neither Texas nor Georgia register voters by party. The modeling uses available information like turnout in primaries and other factors to predict which party people are likely to support.

The early vote in Texas

More than 5 million voters had cast early ballots in Texas as of Wednesday, according to the Election Lab at the University of Florida, more than 20% of the state’s registered voters.

There are closely watched races for Senate and governor in the Lone Star state; Democrats hope to flip both despite not having won a statewide race since 1994. President Donald Trump rallied there twice on Tuesday and Republicans say the president’s swings through red-leaning states are meant to turn out his base and motivate Republicans who otherwise might have sat out this midterm.

As of Monday, 51% of the early vote in Texas is from voters modeled as likely to vote for Democrats while 45% is from voters modeled as likely to vote for Republicans, the analysis shows -- a 14 percentage point swing for Democrats from 2022 when they were behind Republicans by around 8 percentage points when early voting was finished. Donald Trump won Texas by 14 points in 2024.

In Texas, regular voters who voted in four out of the last four federal elections made up a greater share of the turnout as of Monday than they did in the complete early vote in 2024 and 2022, according to the analysis. This doesn’t necessarily mean that more habitual voters have shown up, just that fewer less-regular voters have. The habitual voters make up 60% of the early vote this year, as of Monday; this group made up 47% of the total early vote in 2024 and 44% of the total early vote in 2022

The early vote data shows that Democrats are getting far higher turnout among the less frequent voters in Texas who likely prefer Democrats, in comparison to the less frequent voters who likely prefer Republicans. Whether it be during the remaining days of early voting or on Election Day, Republicans will need to mobilize their less enthusiastic supporters.

Among voters who did not vote in any of the last four federal elections but who have voted early in Texas as of Monday, 64% of them are modeled as likely to vote for a Democrat and 21% as likely to vote for a Republican. In the total early vote in 2022, 50% of these voters were modeled as likely Democratic voters and 39% were estimated to be likely Republican voters.

In the early vote to date, there are far fewer less-habitual voters compared to high-turnout ones and they take up a smaller share of the early vote overall. Still, close elections are decided at the margins and polling in Texas has shown the Senate and governor’s races being close.

The early vote in Georgia

More than 2.1 million voters had cast early ballots in Georgia as of Wednesday morning, according to the Election Lab at the University of Florida, where the Senate and governor's races are also being closely watched.

In the Senate race, GOP Rep. Mike Collins is trying to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff. Democrats are trying to flip the governorship as Democratic former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms faces Republican businessman Rick Jackson in a race both parties see as competitive.

According to ABC News' analysis, 54% of the early vote in Georgia is from voters modeled as likely to vote for Democrats while 38% is from voters modeled as likely to vote for Republicans.

In Georgia, habitual voters who voted in four out of the last four federal elections comprised a greater share of the turnout as of Monday than they did in the early vote one week out from the 2022 midterms.

Habitual voters made up 67% of the early vote in 2026 as of Monday while they comprised 55% of the total early vote one week from Election Day 2022.

Among voters who did not vote in any of the last four federal elections but who have voted early in Georgia as of Monday, 52% of them are modeled as likely to vote for Democrats and 12% are modeled as likely to vote for Republicans. In the early vote at this time in 2022, 51% of those voters were modeled Democratic and 27% were modeled Republican

Meanwhile, among voters who voted in two out of the last four federal elections who had voted early in Georgia as of Monday, 56% are modeled Democratic and 24% Republican. In the early vote at this point in 2022, 54% of those voters were modeled Democratic and 35% Republican.

Early voting ends in both states on Friday.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Alaska Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola's campaign is under fire after a New York Times report Wednesday that it played a role in recruiting Dan J. Sullivan -- a Republican who almost has the same name as incumbent GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan -- as part of an effort to sow confusion and ultimately benefit Peltola's campaign.

The Times report said it relied on 12 sources, text messages and documents that allegedly showed members of Peltola's campaign, lawyers for Peltola and senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee contributed to pushing Dan J. Sullivan, a Republican on Alaska's four-way ballot, to run.

The Times said the effort to find a spoiler candidate -- who could potentially siphon votes from Sen. Sullivan and benefit Peltola -- was internally referred to as the ballot composition project.

Alaskans for Mary, the campaign committee for Peltola, said through a spokesperson on Wednesday that it "has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign."

The DSCC told ABC News in a statement that it was "not involved with Dan J. Sullivan."

"Republicans have a long history of recruiting and propping up candidates in an attempt to boost their own campaigns," a DSCC spokesperson wrote in the statement, detailing an instance when Peltola ran for reelection in the House in 2024 and the state Republican Party supported an effort by a Democratic House candidate and inmate in New York federal prison to stay on the ballot, challenging Peltola.

Peltola finished first in Alaska's August primary with 49.5% of the vote and Sen. Sullivan was second with 41.4%. Dan J. Sullivan was third with 2.5% of the vote and Democrat David Leslie finished with 1.1%. Leslie later dropped out of the race and Republican Gerald Heikes, who finished fifth in the primary with 1%, moved into the fourth spot on the November ballot.

On the general election ballot, Sen. Sullivan is listed as Dan S. Sullivan, a registered Republican and it is noted that he is the incumbent. The other Sullivan is listed as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. with no party affiliation.

In response to the Times report, President Donald Trump said in a social media post Wednesday afternoon that Peltola should "suffer the Legal and Political consequences for what she has done," and that she and Dan J. Sullivan should be kicked off the ballot. The president also said Peltola engaged in "election fraud." 

"Dan Sullivan should be allowed to run without either Mary Peltola or FAKE Dan Sullivan on the Ballot," Trump wrote.

ABC News has reached out to Dan J. Sullivan's campaign for comment on the New York Times' report. ABC News also reached out to the Alaska Department of Elections for comment.

Alaska courts evaluated the dispute over Dan J. Sullivan's candidacy and found nothing illegal about his bid to be on the ballot -- even if it was not entirely in "good faith" or an attempt to "confuse and mislead" as the Trump administration and Republicans contend. 

Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and are widely considered legal, the New York Times reported.

Former Peltola staffer Elisa Rios told the Times about the reported recruitment effort, saying Peltola wasn't directly involved but that she was "definitely aware."

However, the Times also reported that Rios later requested a retraction of the statements she gave the newspaper, though she did not disclose a reason. 

Rios was also reportedly fired from the campaign this past summer, just days before the primary. At the time, the Peltola campaign told ABC News the "campaign has undergone staffing updates as we transition into the general election" but did not comment on Rios specifically.

For months, Republicans have claimed that Dan J. Sullivan was pursued as a candidate in order to confuse Alaskan voters and potentially peel away voters from the incumbent GOP senator.

In a statement on Wednesday, Nate Adams, campaign spokesperson for incumbent Sen. Sullivan said that "Alaskans deserve the truth" and claimed that Peltola and her campaign "have spent months gaslighting Alaskans" in an effort to "deceive" voters.

The Department of Justice has an active criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding Dan J. Sullivan's candidacy dating back several months, ABC News has reported.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Alaska Department of Law said the Times' story confirmed its initial concerns about Dan J. Sullivan's candidacy, but it had no impact on the DOJ litigation.

“Placing candidates on the ballot is a matter of state law, not federal law," it said. "The Alaska Supreme Court ordered the Division to place Daniel J. on the primary election ballot and he advanced to the general election under Alaska law as the third-place candidate."

"The Division is bound by the Alaska Supreme Court’s order and is committed to running a fair election and assisting voters as needed,” it said.

The Trump administration preemptively filed a lawsuit last week to block certification of the Alaska Senate race if Sen. Sullivan narrowly loses, citing voter confusion with two Dan Sullivans on the ballot.

The federal judge handling that case signaled considerable skepticism of DOJ's legal strategy on Monday.

District Judge Sharon Gleason highlighted the last-minute nature of the government's actions, especially as Alaskans have already begun casting their ballots.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The federal judge in New York handling the prosecution of ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro has died. 

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein died of natural causes Wednesday morning just shy of his 93rd birthday, according to Laura Taylor Swain, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"Judge Hellerstein was an insightful and dedicated lawyer who, following a distinguished career in the private sector, served with distinction for over 25 years as a distinguished jurist of this court," Swain said in a statement, in part. "His energetic and dedicated service to this Court continued until his death. He is greatly appreciated and will be sorely missed."

"We were saddened to learn of Judge Hellerstein’s passing and offer our condolences to his family," Nicolas Maduro's attorney said in a statement to ABC News.

Hellerstein was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1998 and oversaw a diverse array of federal cases in the nation’s preeminent district court, including litigation involving the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, over which Swain said he presided "with sensitivity, fairness and efficiency."

Born in New York City on Dec. 28, 1933, Hellerstein earned his law degree from Columbia Law School in 1956. He clerked for Judge Edmund Palmieri of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from 1956 to 1957 and served in the U.S. Army JAG Corps as a first lieutenant from 1957 to 1960, according to Swain's statement. He subsequently worked as a litigator at a New York law firm from 1960 until his appointment to U.S. district court by President Clinton.

A new judge will be randomly assigned to take over the Maduro case and Hellerstein's other matters, according to the court.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

While Election Day is on Nov. 3, at least some of California's midterm election results may not be projected until days or even weeks later.

Not only is there a plethora of ballots to count because California is the most populous state, with 23 million registered voters, but it also relies on a large number of mail-in ballots, with some not arriving until a week after voting ends.

According to the California secretary of state, "vote-by-mail ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received within seven days after the election, as well as any provisional ballots cast, must still be counted."

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law allowing tabulation of late-arriving mail-in ballots so long as they were postmarked by Election Day. The decision was a loss for the Republican Party, which brought the case, and the Trump administration, which has pushed to override state election rules nationwide by imposing strict federal limits on voting by mail.

The Supreme Court last month also rejected the Trump administration's attempt to limit mail-in voting for now, keeping in place a lower court decision blocking the U.S. Postal Service from implementing new restrictions.

In addition to late-arriving mail ballots, the California secretary of state told ABC News that there is an arduous process of counting mail ballots and validating voters' signatures, as each envelope signature must match the signatures on file. County election officials have up to 30 days after the election to count ballots.

More than 89% of Californians that voted in the June 2 primary election did so by mail, according to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber. On July 10, Weber announced that the primary results were certified. 

ABC News projected the two candidates advancing to the state's gubernatorial general election about one week after the primary election: Democrat Xavier Becerra was projected to advance on June 5, and Republican Steve Hilton was projected to advance on June 9.

California's long ballot-counting process often opens floodgates for criticism, with President Donald Trump frequently claiming without evidence that elections in the state are "rigged."

"In the end, they're not going to let you win it. They just won't let you win it because it's a rigged state," Trump said during a Newsmax interview earlier in October.

In his claims of election fraud, Trump has repeatedly referenced Republican Spencer Pratt's loss in the Los Angeles mayoral primary. While Pratt was initially in second place on primary night, he was eventually edged out by Democrat Nithya Raman once ballots were fully counted -- which can happen given the state's vote-counting process.

"Spencer Pratt was doing great. And at the end of the election, Election Day, his opponent was crying. Oh, she's lost so badly. She was crying. Then all of a sudden, like a week and a half later, you hear that she's surging. Nobody ever heard of her. You know, people that nobody ever heard of don't surge. The only time they surge is when they cheat," Trump claimed in early October.

The University of Florida's Election Lab has found that so far, 50% of mail ballots that have been accepted by the state of California are from registered Democrats and 29% are from registered Republicans, as of Oct. 25. The remaining 21% of ballots are from those with no party affiliation or registered with a minor party. 

An October ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that among likely California voters who said they would probably or certainly vote -- or who already had -- 65% said they would vote by mail. Just 11% of California voters said they would vote in person at a polling place on Election Day.

The president has also railed against mail-in ballots for years, despite himself voting by mail twice during Florida elections this year. A White House spokesperson said that Trump has supported "commonsense exceptions" to allow Americans to use mail-in ballots, including for "illness, disability, military, or travel," but that he opposes universal voting by mail due to it being "highly susceptible to fraud."

An analysis from the Brookings Institution from November 2025 found that voter fraud is rare in voting by mail.

As the president blitzes the country ahead of the midterms, he has continued to sow doubt in mail-in voting while simultaneously encouraging Republicans to vote any way they can. Speaking to Newsmax earlier this month, Trump claimed without evidence that Democrats are sent multiple ballots and that Republicans sometimes do not receive a ballot at all.

"They send out millions and millions of ballots. Democrats get, in some cases seven, in some cases one, but in some cases they get much more than one. Republicans oftentimes don't get any, they have to call in for their ballot," Trump claimed.

Ahead of the general election, officials and state leaders have emphasized the security of California elections and mail ballots.

"Voting in California is secure, reliable, and part of California's tradition of encouraging participation in our democracy," Weber, the secretary of state, said earlier this month.

"Voting is safe, vote-by-mail is accessible to any and all who need it. And I encourage every Californian to make their voice heard this November," California Gov. Gavin Newsom also said in October.

California is not the only state where election results take an extended amount of time. Alaska, for instance, accepts some ballots up to 15 days after the election and certification cannot be done before then.

The Alaska Division of Elections says that the "process is intentionally slow and methodical so that accuracy is obtained."

Pennsylvania also prevents counties from opening ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day, meaning early votes cannot be counted upon receipt.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The federal district judge overseeing the Justice Department's lawsuit asking California to segregate roughly 20,000 ballot belonging to individuals it claims are "likely" noncitizens appeared skeptical of the DOJ's efforts to seek emergency action just a week from the state's election. 

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter said in court Tuesday he intends to appoint a special master to probe DOJ's process that led it to compile the list of alleged 20,000 likely non-citizens, dealing a setback to the Trump administration's attempt to quickly intervene in the election. 

Judge Carter did not rule by the conclusion of the hearing on the DOJ request for a temporary restraining order against the state, though he appeared skeptical of the department's late-stage attempt to force what he described as a "monumental change" in California's ongoing administration of its election. 

Carter told the parties he intends to issue some kind of ruling governing proceedings on the case moving forward by tomorrow. 

Bill Essayli, a controversial Trump-installed leader of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Central District of California, argued in the hearing that the administration was simply pushing for the state to be in compliance with federal law barring non-citizens from casting votes. 

But state officials and other legal advocates opposing the DOJ lawsuit countered that the litigation violated longstanding Constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections -- and could have chaotic consequences for the state in tabulating final vote counts in the weeks ahead. 

Notably in closing out the hearing, Judge Carter appeared to admonish the administration over its recent letters to state officials around California suggesting it could prosecute them if they are involved in tabulating ballots that could be from the list of alleged likely noncitizens. 

"This court believes it would be wise that any threats to state and county elected employees cease immediately," Carter said. "Good night."

On Monday, a federal appeals court rejected a request from the DOJ to issue an order requiring California to set aside the 20,000 ballots from its list, kicking the back to the district court.

Earlier this month, the DOJ filed suit against California, accusing the state of failing to review the list of alleged noncitizens that the Trump administration claimed were sent mail-in ballots for next week's midterm election.

In court papers filed earlier last week, Los Angeles officials said a preliminary analysis of 200 of the names on the 20,000-person list, included a "high percentage" of individuals who say they were born in the U.S. and many more who have no voting history at all. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Tension between the U.S. and Cuba was on full display at the United Nations on Tuesday as the Trump administration's envoy to the body, Ambassador Mike Waltz, and Cuba's foreign minister engaged in a shouting match on the floor of the General Assembly.

During the U.N.'s annual debate on the U.S. blockade against Cuba, Waltz took the podium and began delivering a speech that was hotly critical of the Cuban regime. 

Shortly after Waltz began his remarks, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla and the rest of the Cuban delegation began challenging him from the audience -- shouting and gesturing as the president of the assembly banged his gavel and fruitlessly asked them to quiet down.

"I hope everyone, Mr. President, is listening to the delegation right now," Waltz said with a smile. "Imagine what happens when someone ask these questions in Havana, not in a room of ambassadors and cameras! Imagine what happens to those people if this is the intimidation and disruption that we see!"

Rodríguez Parrilla and Waltz traded more remarks, with Waltz declaring "This is America, this is the United Nations, this isn't your communist dictatorship. You can't silence me or you cannot silence my colleagues!

Rodríguez Parrilla, whose comments could not be clearly heard on a U.N. livestream of the meeting, approached the front of the hall.

Waltz yelled, "Mr. President, this individual needs to back away from this podium. He's not going to intimidate me in the United States of America! I'm the representative of the United States of America! Back up!" 

At that point, the assembly president suspended the meeting. After recounting the U.N.'s rules for the event, the president then gave Rodríguez Parrilla a chance to issue a point of order on the condition he limit his grievances to procedure rather the substance of Waltz's remarks.

Rodríguez Parrilla returned to his seat and used the opportunity to speak to protest Waltz's claims, accusing him of "grossly lying." 

Waltz finished his speech without major incident, ending by urging the chamber to vote against the resolution under consideration on Wednesday. Waltz finished his remarks without major incident -- urging the chamber to vote against the resolution under consideration on Wednesday. 

Following the incident, Rodríguez Parrilla doubled down on X, writing that Waltz "with his arrogance and hubris, forgets that he is at the United Nations, not at the US National Security Council, nor in a Green Berets unit, nor in a Signal group, where he has repeatedly shown his incompetence and incapacity."

Waltz, a former Green Beret, came under scrutiny last year while serving as national security adviser for inadvertently inviting a journalist to a Signal chat with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and other top national security officials discussing details of the strike on the Houthis in Yemen.

President Donald Trump nominated Waltz to the U.N. post at the same time he announced Secretary of State Marco Rubio would also serve as national security adviser. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump is barnstorming deep-red states across the country to defend GOP majorities in Congress as Democrats make inroads in some unlikely places.

The president has made 19 stops to states he handily won and six to battlegrounds since Sept. 9, according to ABC News tracking. Those include three in Texas, two in Ohio, two in Tennessee, and visits to states that for some observers may be surprising: Oklahoma, Kentucky and Alabama.

The president is set to make his fourth campaign season trip to Texas -- a state he won in three presidential elections -- on Tuesday, where he will attend two rallies; Vice President JD Vance will be in Texas for a rally later this week. These two upcoming trips mean Trump and Vance will have visited Texas -- typically reliably red -- eight times since Labor Day weekend.

An early October ReconMR poll found that among likely Texas voters, Texas Democratic state Rep. James Talarico had 48% support while Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton had 44% support, within the poll's margin of error.

Trump's red-state travels come with just days until the high-stakes midterm elections where control of Congress is at stake.

As Democratic candidates largely center their campaigns around affordability and ending the Iran war, they are fending off attacks from Republicans, largely on taxes, culture war and transgender issues. At the same time, Republicans are calling on the president and his Cabinet officials to heed voter economic concerns.

As Republicans look to shore up support among the MAGA faithful, Trump's approval ratings have suffered. His approval rating recently reached a record low of 33% in the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll. About 7 in 10 Americans say that gas is unaffordable and that the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to the same poll.

On Monday, Trump hit the campaign trail in Mississippi, where no Democrat has been elected to the U.S. Senate since 1982. Trump carried the state by a 23-point margin in the 2024 presidential election. GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith is defending her seat against Democrat and district attorney Scott Colom.

"A lot of folks ain't gonna be able to make this rally because they can't afford the gas to get up here," Colom said at a press conference in Corinth ahead of Trump's rally in the city.

Trump said on Monday that he was supporting Hyde-Smith in the state because he "can't take a chance."

"I can't take a chance. She's got no problem. The only problem is sometimes, and this happens, and sometimes when you think somebody's doing so well, nobody wants – they all stay home," Trump said -- later adding "so that's why I'm here."

Last week, Trump campaigned in Kansas for Republican incumbent Sen. Roger Marshall, who is fighting in what ABC News is rating a toss-up race for reelection against Democrat Rev. Adam Hamilton. Vance stumped for the one-term incumbent in September and again on Monday.

Hamilton could break a 94-year losing streak for Democrats -- he is split even with Marshall among likely Kansas voters, according to a September New York Times/Siena University poll.

Trump is headed back to Kansas on Saturday in Salina, where he will need to run up the score in a county he carried by more than 30 points in 2024.

Several Republicans -- including Trump, Vance, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Speaker Mike Johnson -- have visited Wisconsin's closely watched 3rd Congressional District, where Democrat Rebecca Cooke is facing off against GOP incumbent Rep. Derrick Van Orden. ABC News recently shifted its rating from "toss-up" to "lean Democrat."

Trump surrogates are also flocking to Iowa, a state Trump won in the last three presidential elections. The president has already paid a visit to Sioux City and will headline a rally in Dubuque just two days before the midterms.

Iowa Democratic Senate candidate Josh Turek, a state lawmaker, is running against Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson to succeed outgoing GOP Sen. Joni Ernst.

Hinson has praised the president but also sought to distance herself at times and recently called for an end to the Iran war.

But Turek told ABC News it is "good" for Trump to see how healthcare funding cuts and tariffs have affected Iowans.

"I think that the war in Iran has hurt Iowa more than any other state," Turek said.

Kennedy is stumping for Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidate Zach Lahn on Wednesday. Johnson is headlining a rally for GOP incumbent Rep. Zach Nunn in the state's 3rd Congressional District that same day.

At least nine cabinet members visited Iowa in August, underscoring just how competitive the House races, open Senate and governor races have become.

ABC News' Oren Oppenheim contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The Justice Department is asking election officials in Washington state to set aside hundreds of ballots it says may belong to noncitizen voters, the latest move by the Trump administration to intervene in a state-run election just days before the midterms.

The move sparked backlash from state officials who said the Justice Department’s intention in publicizing these allegations so close to an election was to create "unfounded suspicion."

Federal prosecutors in Washington state claimed in a statement Monday that the more than 400 individuals on the list represented “only the tip of the iceberg.” The statement accompanied a letter sent by the state’s two U.S. attorneys demanding that election officials set aside any ballots belonging to individuals on the list. ABC News has not seen the letter.

The Justice Department’s messaging in Washington on Monday echoes steps it took ahead of a lawsuit it filed last week against California, where it has sued to prevent the state from counting more than 20,000 ballots it claims may belong to noncitizen voters.

The Trump administration has promoted a number isolated cases of alleged noncitizen voting in recent weeks as evidence of rampant election fraud. But all available evidence suggests voter fraud and noncitizen voting remains exceedingly rare, and certainly not widespread enough to alter the outcome of any election.

A federal appeals court declined to intervene in that matter and said that the "emergency" the DOJ claimed was in part "self-constructed."

Local officials in Los Angeles said a sampling of the 20,000 ballots surveyed showed a "high percentage" of people who say they were born in the U.S.

"We saw what happened in California and don't want Washingtonians to be harassed," Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said in a statement on Monday responding to the Justice Department's letter.

Hobbs wrote in his response that at least one of the individuals on the Justice Department’s list dates back to 1994. Since then, 113.5 million primary and general election ballots have been cast in Washington, according to the secretary of state’s office.

"The timing of this request -- one week before the General Election -- is no doubt intended to cast unfounded suspicion on the results," Hobbs added. "We are carefully reviewing the request and assessing the information sought to ensure that our response complies with applicable state and federal laws."
 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The federal judge handling the Justice Department's bid to block certification of Alaska's Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan narrowly loses signaled considerable skepticism of DOJ's legal strategy on Monday.

In her first order acknowledging the case, District Judge Sharon Gleason highlighted the last-minute nature of the government's actions, especially as Alaskans have already begun casting their ballots. 

"After Alaskans had already begun casting their ballots for the November 2026 election -- and nearly four months after the Alaska Supreme Court directed the Division of Elections to include Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot for the upcoming United States Senate election -- the United States initiated this action on October 22, 2026," Gleason said.

"The United States seeks a court order to prevent Defendants from certifying the result of the November 2026 United States Senate election if '(1) [Dan S.] Sullivan does not win the election; and (2) had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast instead for [Dan S.] Sullivan and Alaska's rank-choice process played out accordingly, [Dan S.] Sullivan would have won the election.'" 

On Friday, President Donald Trump said that he had directed the Justice Department to preemptively file a lawsuit to try to block the certification of the crucial Alaska Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, citing name confusion among the candidates.

Republicans have alleged that candidate Dan J. Sullivan is running a sham campaign to purposefully confuse voters and draw votes away from incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan based on their names being similar.

The district judge's order came in response to a rapid series of briefings from parties seeking to join the case and dismiss the lawsuit.

Gleason said in her order on Monday that she intends to issue a ruling on a request for outside parties to join by Wednesday at 5 p.m. local time. She has yet to indicate whether she will hold a hearing. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Over the last month, a legal fight has been playing out behind closed doors about the Department of Justice’s ongoing investigation into former FBI Director James Comey over the alleged mishandling of classified information dating back more than a decade ago. 

According to newly unsealed court records, prosecutors allege that Comey broke the law by directing FBI staff to leak information to a New York Times reporter for an article published on Oct. 5, 2016, titled “Yahoo Said to Have Aided U.S. Email Surveillance by Adapting Spam Filter.” 

“The United States' investigation has uncovered evidence that former FBI Director, James B. Comey, sought to correct misinformation which had appeared in the press by way of Reuters the day before,” prosecutors wrote in their response to Comey’s motion to dismiss earlier this month. “Mr. Comey directed staff to speak to [the New York Times reporter] about specific accuracy concerns related to the Reuters article, and thereby illegally transferred classified information.”

The article in question centered on whether the Department of Justice sought a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to force Yahoo to search for communications between members of a foreign terrorist organization. According to court filings, Comey sought to correct claims in a Reuters story published the previous day that Yahoo “secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials.” 

Prosecutors with the Department of Justice filed the charges against Comey via what's known as a “criminal information,” which does not require the approval of a grand jury. It was filed under seal on Oct. 5. 

Department of Justice lawyers argue that by filing a criminal information within 10 years of the alleged crime, they stopped the clock on the statute of limitations and secured a months-long extension to secure an indictment. 

“The Department filed a waiverless criminal information to toll the statute of limitations as it relates to allegations concerning former FBI Director Comey. Filing a criminal information to toll the statute of limitations is a widely recognized practice in federal court and has been approved by multiple Circuit Courts of Appeals. This is an ongoing criminal investigation, and we will not comment further,” a Department of Justice account said on social media. 

However, Comey’s lawyers argue that the statute of limitations to bring a criminal information actually expired five years agoc and the rule prosecutors cited to secure an extension only applies to indictments. They also argued that the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court has not approved the practice of tolling the statute of limitations via a criminal information. 

“Because the default five-year statute of limitations for federal felonies has long since elapsed on the alleged offenses, and the government's information does not meet the express statutory requirement for an extended ten-year limitations period, the information is untimely and must be dismissed,” Comey’s lawyers wrote in their motion to dismiss. 

Prosecutors pushed back on that argument, claiming that the federal law in question applies to both indictments and informations and arguing that “the case comes down to a syllogism" in federal law.  

“Given the seriousness of espionage offenses, and given the deficiencies of the prior statute-of-limitations period in capturing treasonous conduct threatening this nation, Congress intended to lengthen the time to prosecute acts of espionage – not to split that time by instrument,” prosecutors wrote.

Comey also faces federal charges of threatening Trump after a federal grand jury indicted Comey on two charges in April after he posted a picture on his Instagram account of seashells spelling out "8647," which federal prosecutors say constituted a threat against the president's life.

Comey's lawyers are seeking to have that case thrown out. His defense lawyers argued that Trump's repeated calls for Comey's prosecution and criticism of his public statement "leave no doubt as to his genuine animus" and demonstrate that the case against him for allegedly threatening to kill Trump by posting photos of seashells on a beach is vindictive.

"The ensuing indictment is not based on a good faith application of the law to the facts; instead, it effectuates a yearslong campaign by the President to use the criminal process to punish Mr. Comey for his protected speech and because of the President's deep-seated animosity," Comey's lawyers wrote.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Monday rejected a request from the Justice Department for an immediate order demanding California segregate roughly 20,000 mail-in ballots from individuals the Trump administration claims are likely non-citizens.

The 2-1 ruling from the panel said the appeals court lacks jurisdiction at this stage in the litigation, punting it back to district court, which has a hearing on the DOJ lawsuit set for Tuesday afternoon. 

Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, and Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a President Joe Biden appointee, ruled against the administration's request, with Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissenting. 

In their ruling, Bennett and Sanchez wrote: "The United States’s claimed emergency, at least in part, is a self-constructed one. At least part of the delay here is attributable to the United States’s own delay in filing suit, in realizing that existing California state law governs the issuance and processing of ballots, in recognizing that California has millions of registered voters and processes ballots on a schedule aligned with that scale, and in communicating to the court its desired relief."

Earlier this month, the DOJ filed suit against California, accusing the state of failing to review a list of alleged noncitizens that the Trump administration claimed were sent mail-in ballots for next week's midterm election. 

In court papers filed earlier last week, Los Angeles officials said a preliminary analysis of 200 of the names on the 20,000-person list, included a "high percentage" of individuals who say they were born in the U.S. and many more who have no voting history at all. 

Of those 200 individuals, officials said, nearly 40% "indicate that they were born in the United States, which is strong evidence of citizenship; and 71.2% of the records have no voting history," according to a filing.

In a rare Sunday emergency hearing, the Justice Department's efforts to have the appeals court quickly rule on its lawsuit faced considerable skepticism from the panel.

Bennett repeatedly questioned whether the appeals court had jurisdiction to step in at this stage in the litigation and expressed considerable constitutional concerns over the lawsuit itself. 

"I don't see how we have jurisdiction," Bennett said to DOJ attorney Matthew Donnelly after pressing him over the timeline of the government's decision to seek emergency appeal when a hearing before the district judge is already set for Tuesday. 

Donnelly claimed that the DOJ's decision to seek relief from the appeals court came after disclosures by California of the numbers of mail-in ballots already being processed in advance of the election -- which number in the hundreds of thousands.

Bennett's most significant concerns appeared to be the nature of the lawsuit and it appearing to directly contradict the Constitution's Elections Clause -- which mandates that states have jurisdictions over the manner their elections are run.

"How can the legislature making laws with regard to the manner of holding elections be preempted by a criminal statute passed by the Congress, especially when both the Congress and the California Legislature have made it illegal for non-citizens to vote?" he asked.

Donnelly repeatedly pointed to DOJ's position that the way California is administering its elections -- and not acting on the hard drive of potential 20,000 likely non-citizens -- infringes on the federal government's ability to enforce the federal statute barring voting by illegal immigrants.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump said on Monday that he is offering a $1 million reward for anyone who reports voter fraud -- in past elections or in the upcoming midterm elections -- that leads to a conviction.

"Anybody reporting Voter Fraud in the past Elections, or the upcoming 2026 Midterm Election, will be paid $1,000,000 upon the arrest and conviction of those that created the Fraud," Trump wrote in a social media post.

Trump has repeatedly made unfounded claims that there was widespread voter fraud in past elections. It is not clear where the money for this reward that the president is offering would come from. 

The White House would not provide any additional details about Trump's announcement.

Trump has pushed election reform legislation, the SAVE America Act, which he says will cut down on voter fraud. The legislation requires voter ID at the ballot box and proof of citizenship to register.

The House passed the measure earlier this year; it has failed in the Senate multiple times.

Last week, Trump announced a separate fraud whistleblower program where tipsters who successfully report and prove fraud cases will be rewarded a 1% commission of the amount of money the government is able to recover. The president said he would make the determination of whether a tipster would receive a financial reward.

ABC News' Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.