Federal and State Courts Handle at Least Two Election Disputes Before November 4 Midterms
Active pre-election litigation in California and Alaska demonstrates that ballot eligibility disputes are being adjudicated before votes are counted, not only after.
At least two election-related lawsuits were active in federal and state courts as of October 28, 2026, less than one week before the November 4 midterm elections, according to reporting by The Hill. The disputes involve ballot eligibility in California and candidate identification in Alaska, and both carry potential consequences for vote counts in competitive races.
In California, the Trump administration has filed a legal action seeking to set aside approximately 20,000 ballots it alleges were cast by noncitizens, according to The Hill. The administration has not publicly released the full evidentiary basis for the 20,000 figure in documents reviewed for this report. The specific court docket number and the federal agency or Department of Justice component responsible for filing were not confirmed in available public records as of publication. The complaint itself, once filed in the court's public docket, would contain the evidentiary basis for the noncitizen allegation.
California election law requires that voter registration applicants attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury. State officials have not, as of October 28, publicly confirmed whether they are contesting the administration's figure or the legal standard being applied. The California Secretary of State's office administers the statewide voter registration database, and any court order affecting those 20,000 ballots would likely require coordination with that office.
In Alaska, a separate dispute involves two candidates sharing the name Dan Sullivan who are both running for U.S. Senate, according to The Hill. Alaska uses a top-four nonpartisan primary system, established by Ballot Measure 2 in 2020, which allows multiple candidates from any party to advance to the general election. The presence of two candidates with the same name on the same ballot creates a voter identification question that at least one party has brought to court, though the specific filing, court, and docket number were not confirmed in available public records at the time of publication.
The incumbent Dan Sullivan is a Republican who has represented Alaska in the U.S. Senate since January 2015, winning reelection in 2020 with approximately 54 percent of the vote according to Alaska Division of Elections certified results. Whether the second Dan Sullivan is a Republican, Democrat, independent, or unaffiliated candidate, and whether the ballot dispute concerns ballot design, candidate withdrawal, or voter confusion remedies, was not confirmed in documents reviewed for this report. The Alaska Division of Elections public records would contain the second candidate's registration and filing status.
Pre-election litigation is a recognized feature of American election administration. Federal courts have jurisdiction over claims arising under the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes such as the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. State courts have jurisdiction over claims arising under state election codes. In some cases, parallel state and federal actions proceed simultaneously.
The legal standard for obtaining pre-election relief typically requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, a risk of irreparable harm absent relief, that the balance of equities favors the plaintiff, and that relief serves the public interest. These four factors come from the Supreme Court's standard articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council (2008). Courts applying this standard to ballot-related disputes often consider the proximity of the election as a factor in the irreparable harm analysis.
Historically, pre-election litigation has been filed by both parties. In the 2020 election cycle, the nonpartisan Election Law at Ohio State tracker documented more than 400 election-related lawsuits filed before and after Election Day across the country. The volume of litigation in 2022 and 2024 midterm and presidential cycles also ran into the hundreds of cases, according to reporting from the Brennan Center for Justice and Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project, both of which maintain public litigation databases.
The outcomes of the California and Alaska cases before November 4 remain unknown as of publication. In California, a court could grant the administration's requested relief, deny it, schedule a hearing for after Election Day, or issue a narrower order. In Alaska, a court could order ballot redesign, candidate removal, or voter notice measures, or could find the dispute does not meet the threshold for pre-election intervention.
What is not yet established in public records: the specific case names, docket numbers, presiding judges, and full relief sought in both the California and Alaska actions. Those details are available in the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system for any federal filings, and in the Alaska Court System's public online docket for any state filings. The California Secretary of State's litigation log and the U.S. District Court for the applicable California district would contain the relevant federal filings. Publication of those docket entries would allow independent verification of the parties, claims, and current procedural status of both cases.