WASHINGTON, September 28, 2026 — Cozen O’Connor Public Strategies, the bipartisan government relations and communications affiliate of international law firm Cozen O’Connor, today announced the addition of Alex Calabro as principal in its Washington, D.C., office.
October 7, 2026
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, election security is increasingly a local operational challenge. Municipal and county election officials must protect voter-registration systems, polling places, workers, ballots, and public communications while navigating federal policy changes, litigation, misinformation, and declining public confidence. Recent Pew Research Center polling found that 55% of Americans were confident the midterm elections would be administered fairly and accurately, reinforcing the importance of visible, reliable local election operations.
These pressures are reflected in a recent Brennan Center survey of 834 local election officials. The survey found that 71% have planned for at least one potential disruption, 89% expect to coordinate with another agency ahead of the midterms, and 75% have not received additional state or local resources to offset federal cuts to election-security services. With nearly one-third also reporting threats, harassment, or abuse because of their work, cities and the local jurisdictions that administer elections are becoming the point at which cybersecurity, physical security, voter access, public communication, and intergovernmental conflict converge.
Local election administrators are preparing for a wider range of disruptions than in prior cycles. Cyber threats can target voter-registration databases, electronic poll books, election-management systems, and results-reporting websites, while physical threats and harassment can affect election workers and polling locations. Misinformation adds another layer of risk by turning routine operational delays into broader doubts about legitimate results.
At the same time, federal election policy has become a source of operational and legal uncertainty. The Department of Homeland Security sought to condition certain anti-terrorism grants on election-security practices, including voter-list checks, manual ballot audits, and the use of systems compatible with hand-marked paper ballots. A federal court later blocked the grant conditions after several local governments challenged them.
Mail voting and voter-eligibility requirements have generated additional uncertainty for jurisdictions finalizing procedures ahead of Election Day. In August, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed portions of the administration’s restrictions on mail voting to proceed, but the Court subsequently declined to allow enforcement of certain requirements involving the U.S. Postal Service. Congress has also considered nationwide proof-of-citizenship requirements through the SAVE America Act, which passed the House but failed to advance through the Senate. Although these disputes originate at the federal level, cities and counties bear much of the implementation burden, including updating procedures, training election workers, and communicating changing requirements to voters.
Federal cybersecurity support is also evolving. The administration has reduced resources supporting the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s election-security work, increasing questions about the level of federal assistance available to local election officials. At the same time, CISA released its 2026 Election Infrastructure Security Plan, “Securing the Next 250,” emphasizing year-round resilience and coordination among state, local, and federal partners. The plan includes resources intended to help election officials assess how their systems would respond to cyber incidents. Combined with reduced federal support, however, the initiative leaves unresolved how local officials will secure the resources needed to strengthen election administration ahead of the midterms.
Election security increasingly extends beyond voting equipment to the systems, personnel, and procedures supporting registration, ballot handling, polling places, results reporting, and public communications. Cities are responding with new technology, interagency coordination, and operational safeguards.
Cities and counties are using litigation to challenge federal funding conditions and enforcement policies that they argue interfere with local election administration. The cases illustrate how election disputes increasingly extend into questions involving public-safety funding, voter access, and federal-local authority.
As election security becomes more politically salient, routine administrative decisions involving voter eligibility, staffing, oversight, and polling-place operations are facing greater public, legal, and media scrutiny.
Election security remains a top focus for Americans and an increasingly prominent issue for policymakers at all levels of government. For cities, the central question is no longer limited to whether voting equipment is secure, but whether the entire local election ecosystem can remain functional, accessible, and trusted under simultaneous cyber, physical, legal, and informational pressure. Understanding these changing dynamics will be critical for local governments, businesses, and other stakeholders because maintaining confidence in electoral systems may prove just as important as securing the systems themselves.
Industry leaders can play a significant role in this changing environment. Election offices are becoming more sophisticated buyers of cybersecurity, communications, logistics, training, and operational-support services, creating opportunities for businesses that can strengthen election resilience and continuity. Those opportunities will come with heightened scrutiny, public-transparency requirements, litigation risk, and rapidly changing compliance expectations. A jurisdiction may successfully protect the vote count but still face a confidence crisis if a results website fails, election workers are unprepared, or officials cannot clearly explain a procedural change.
Looking beyond the 2026 midterms, it will be important to watch how local governments, voters, policymakers, and the courts continue to shape election administration. Disputes involving federal funding, mail-voting requirements, voter eligibility, and local staffing suggest that cities will remain on the front lines of balancing election security, voter access, and public confidence amid shifting federal and state expectations.
Co-Chair, New York Practice
Managing Director
Managing Director
Co-Chair, New York Practice
Cozen O’Connor Public Strategies, an affiliate of the international law firm Cozen O’Connor, is a bipartisan government relations practice representing clients before the federal government and in cities and states throughout the country. With offices in Washington D.C., Richmond, Albany, New York City, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Chicago, and Santa Monica, the firm’s public strategies professionals offer a full complement of government affairs services, including legislative and executive branch advocacy, policy analysis, assistance with government procurement and funding programs, and crisis management. Its client base spans multiple industries, including healthcare, transportation, hospitality, education, construction, energy, real estate, entertainment, financial services, and insurance.
Established in 1970, Cozen O’Connor has over 775 attorneys who help clients manage risk and make better business decisions. The firm counsels clients on their most sophisticated legal matters in all areas of the law, including litigation, corporate, and regulatory law. Representing a broad array of leading global corporations and middle-market companies, Cozen O’Connor serves its clients’ needs through 31 offices across two continents.
October 7, 2026
October 6, 2026
October 6, 2026
