When Americans go back to the polls next November, their votes will determine which party will control the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, today both narrowly controlled by Republican majorities. The stakes in these midterm elections could not be higher because at issue is whether Congress is likely to act as a check on the actions of President Donald J. Trump. With continued Republican control, an essential part of the “checks and balances” built into the U.S. congressional system seems unlikely. With Democratic control of the House, a third impeachment of Donald Trump seems possible, even likely. 

Perhaps for this reason, Trump has taken unprecedented steps to influence the conduct of the 2026 midterm elections, and to cast doubts on any Democratic victories. He is trying to limit the use of mail-in ballots and require documentary proof of citizenship before people can register to vote. He has put election deniers in key positions of power, telling his supporters that “DEMOCRATS … CHEAT AT LEVELS NOT SEEN BEFORE,” promising to sign an executive order aimed at “MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD” in order “to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 midterms. And he could well send troops into American cities with large minority populations come election time. 

Trump has no power to do much of what he wants to elections under the Constitution, which leaves the administration of elections to states and localities, subject to congressional override. But it may be Trump’s use of soft power on election officials, rather than any executive order, that is the most dangerous. As NYU’s Bob Bauer put it, Trump is preparing to subject state and local election officials “and through them the system with its built-in partisan features, to severe pressure, and he will have federal law enforcement at his command for this purpose.”

What can be done? As I explained more fully in an August guest commentary in the New York Times, states, the courts, and ultimately the American people must serve as the bulwarks against election subversion. In this follow-up post, I want to explore more deeply what the American people can do, and what it means when I wrote in the Times that to “keep us from sliding further into autocracy, it is civil society we must make great again.”

American elections are hyperdecentralized and fragmented. Federal law controls some things about how elections are run, but administration is mostly a local matter, with states designating counties or other smaller units to actually run elections. It falls to election administrators and local boards, some of whom are chosen on a partisan basis, to do things like assuring there are adequate procedures protecting the chain of custody of ballots, choosing the most suitable voting machines, and setting rules for resolving challenges to ballots or voters.

These local administrators and bodies are the front line of defense against efforts to subvert election results. Subversion can happen in a number of ways including by changing voting rules to disenfranchise classes of voters, accepting non-meritorious challenges to ballots in close elections, closing or moving polling places to make it harder for people to vote, allowing federal officials near or into polling locations in ways that can intimidate voters, and much more.

Election administrators are professionals, and most are imbued with a deep commitment to free and fair elections. Partisan boards can be more of a mix in terms of their commitments. But both administrators and boards might succumb to pressure to bend or break election rules if Trump himself directs or endorses such interference in the Orwellian name of protecting “election integrity.” 

The solution is to rely on civil society. Community leaders—including business people, religious leaders, and educators—need to clearly and repeatedly call for transparency and a commitment to free and fair elections. Everyday people should be aware of decisions being made by state and local election administrators and boards, attend public meetings of these bodies, submit public comments, observe election procedures, and let everyone in charge know that anything short of free and fair elections is unacceptable.

There are many weaknesses to a decentralized system of running elections. But diversity can be our strength in thwarting subversion, provided there are enough people from across the political spectrum and across the country who will reaffirm our deep commitment to safe and fair elections.