The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
How many states will be holding elections in November 2026 for Secretary of State:
26 U.S. states will hold elections for Secretary of State. The states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
What is the breakdown between Democrats and Republicans, and what are the most competitive states?
13 Democratic-held offices and 13 Republican-held offices. Analysts expect close races in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, all of which were presidential battlegrounds in 2024.
Why are these elections for Secretary of State so important?
Secretaries of State often oversee election administration, making these contests highly consequential for how elections are run in each state. “Secretaries of State are the guardians of the democratic process,” notes political scientist John J. Martin. In 2026, the balance of power could shift depending on outcomes in the battleground states.
Of the 26 Secretary of State Elections, how many incumbents are either term-limited or likely to retire:
The best current picture of which 2026 races are likely to be open due to term limits, vs. those that could become open if an incumbent retires. Retirement decisions can change, so consider this a status snapshot rather than a final decision.
Likely term-limited (open seats):
- Arkansas — John Thurston (R): Two consecutive terms; elected 2018, re-elected 2022. Likely term-limited in 2026.
- Colorado — Jena Griswold (D): Two-term limit; elected 2018, re-elected 2022. Likely term-limited in 2026.
- Michigan — Jocelyn Benson (D): Two-term limit; elected 2018, re-elected 2022. Term-limited in 2026.
- Ohio — Frank LaRose (R): Two-term limit for statewide executive offices; elected 2018, re-elected 2022. Term-limited in 2026.
Could be open if the incumbent retires (no term limit or eligible for another term):
- Alabama — Wes Allen (R): Eligible for a second term; current listings show 2026 on ballot with “retiring,” but Alabama’s limit is two consecutive terms, so this is a choice, not a legal limit.
- Georgia — Brad Raffensperger (R): No term limit; could run again.
- Kansas — Scott Schwab (R): No term limit; could run again.
- New Mexico — Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D): Has served multiple terms across partial and full terms; whether 2026 is an enforced term limit depends on how NM counts partial terms—this one is the most nuanced and may hinge on state-specific interpretation.
What is the breakdown by party of the likely open seats?
State | Incumbent | Party | Reason the seat may be open in 2026 |
Arkansas | John Thurston | R | Likely term-limited |
Colorado | Jena Griswold | D | Likely term-limited |
Michigan | Jocelyn Benson | D | Term-limited |
Ohio | Frank LaRose | R | Term-limited |
Alabama | Wes Allen | R | Possible retirement (not term-limited) |
Georgia | Brad Raffensperger | R | Possible retirement (no term limits) |
Kansas | Scott Schwab | R | Possible retirement (no term limits) |
New Mexico | Maggie Toulouse Oliver | D | Depends on term-counting rules |
How many of those currently in office are described as "election result deniers," and how many who have announced for office are "election result deniers?"
As of now, five Secretaries of State currently in office are widely described as "election result deniers" for public statements questioning or rejecting the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. In the 2026 races, at least six announced candidates for Secretary of State are also identified with election denialism.
“The legitimacy of our democracy rests on the integrity of elections — Secretaries of State are central to this work,” emphasizes Lindsay Langholz of the American Constitution Society.
Based on reporting from Ballotpedia, Sabato's Crystal Ball, and other election watchdogs, current Secretaries of State who are considered "Election Deniers" are:
- Chuck Gray (R–Wyoming) – Vocal supporter of false claims about 2020 election fraud.
- Diego Morales (R–Indiana) – Questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 results during his campaign.
- Monae Johnson (R–South Dakota) – Campaigned on rejecting the 2020 results and defeated the incumbent who defended them.
- Mark Finchem (R–Arizona) – Note: Finchem lost in 2022; current AZ SoS is Adrian Fontes (D). Not in the office.
- Mark Finchem (R–Arizona) – Note: Finchem lost in 2022; current AZ SoS is Adrian Fontes (D). Not in the office.
- Bob Evnen (R–Nebraska) – Has echoed claims of irregularities.
- Chuck Gray, Diego Morales, Monae Johnson, Bob Evnen, and Michael Howe (R–North Dakota) are the most consistently cited.
Additional 2026 Announced Candidates are identified as election deniers.
- Alexander Kolodin (R–Arizona) – State legislator, aligned with Trump’s false fraud claims.
- Vernon Jones (R–Georgia) – Former Democrat turned Trump ally, promoted election denial narratives.
- Kelvin King (R–Georgia) – GOP activist, aligned with Trump’s claims.
- Tim Fleming (R–Georgia) – Former Trump staffer, tied to denial rhetoric.
- Jamie Reitenour (R–Indiana) – Republican candidate, aligned with denialist positions.
- Andrew Sorrell (R–Alabama) – State legislator, promoted fraud claims.
Why is it so critical to our Democracy that the Secretary of State NOT be election deniers?
Since Secretaries of State oversee voting systems, certification, and election rules, they must uphold the truth and integrity of our democratic process. If election deniers are elected to these positions, they could not only undermine public confidence in election outcomes but also wield their authority to manipulate or obstruct the fair administration of elections. “Their decisions can literally alter the outcome of elections,” as one analysis in The Conversation observed.
The very legitimacy of our democracy depends on citizens trusting that every vote is counted accurately and that results are certified without partisan distortion. Entrusting this responsibility to individuals who reject verified results threatens to erode faith in our institutions, destabilize governance, and weaken the foundation of self-rule. “Partisan manipulation of these offices can have extraordinarily detrimental impacts,” warns the American Constitution Society. Protecting democracy requires that those who administer elections are committed to facts, fairness, and the rule of law—not to falsehoods or conspiracies.David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
