When Does an Election Actually End? Michael Kang Looks Ahead to the Legal Questions Shaping 2026

With the 2026 midterm elections just weeks away, some of the rules governing those elections are still being contested in courtrooms across the country even though voters are already receiving ballots in some states.

Congressional maps have been challenged and redrawn. Voting procedures have been litigated. Disputes over mail ballots and voter eligibility have reached federal courts. And in Missouri, a congressional redistricting fight has moved repeatedly between state and federal courts, with a final ruling settling the issue in the last week of September.

For Michael Kang, Class of 1940 Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, these disputes point to a larger question about the modern American election: When does an election end?

“Election law is not just about what happens on Election Day,” says Kang, who studies election administration, voting rights, campaign finance, political parties and redistricting. “It’s also about what happens before and after the election, and who has the authority to make those decisions.”

Kang has spent his career examining the legal rules that structure the political process. As the 2026 election cycle unfolds, his recent scholarship offers a framework for understanding some of the issues likely to remain important long after the votes are counted.

What happens after the voters have decided?

Kang’s recent article, “Electoral Due Process,” published in the Northwestern University Law Review, examines what can happen after voters have their say, but before their chosen candidate fully exercises the authority associated with the office.

The article focuses on what Kang describes as a growing problem of hyper-partisanship: political majorities using control of state governments to weaken the authority of an elected official from the opposing party or, in some cases, attempting to remove that official after voters have chosen them.

His examples include state legislatures stripping powers from an incoming governor and the use of impeachment or censure to undermine an election winner. The underlying principle, Kang says, is straightforward: The legal consequences of an election should not be changed simply because the winner belongs to the opposing political party.

“The government commits to an allocation of government lawmaking authority dictated by the election result and must abide by that commitment,” Kang writes in the article.

He calls this concept “electoral due process.”

The idea builds on a familiar principle of due process: governments should not establish the rules under which people act and then change those rules after the fact in a way that disadvantages voters. Applied to elections, Kang argues that the same principle can limit government efforts to substantially alter the authority of an office once voters have made their choice.

The issue is particularly relevant when statewide elections are closely divided but one political party has strong control of the legislature. Kang points to Wisconsin and North Carolina as examples of states where those dynamics can produce conflicts over the authority of elected officials.

His work suggests an important election law question that might come after Election Day: What exactly did voters choose, and can the government later change the legal consequences of that choice?

What happens if the rules change during the election?

That question has another dimension in 2026, as election rules themselves have become the subject of intense litigation.

The 2026 cycle has seen disputes over redistricting, mail voting, voter eligibility and other election procedures reach the courts unusually close to Election Day. The Washington Post reported in September that the volume of high-stakes election litigation was above historical norms for a midterm election, with courts still resolving disputes weeks before voters were scheduled to cast ballots.

Missouri provides a particularly vivid example.

The state’s congressional map has been the subject of a series of conflicting court decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked use of a new map for the 2026 election, and subsequent litigation continued even as election preparations were underway. By late September, the Supreme Court had blocked the new map for a third time, with the dispute having already created uncertainty about which congressional boundaries would apply.

For Kang, such disputes raise a broader issue: How late in an election can the rules change?

That question goes beyond redistricting. It applies to voting procedures, election administration and the authority of state and federal officials to alter the mechanics of an election. “The rules of the election are supposed to mean something,” Kang says.

What is the future of voting rights?

Kang is also watching what recent changes in voting rights law mean for elections beyond 2026.

He notes that federal protections under the Voting Rights Act have narrowed considerably, particularly following the Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision eliminating the Voting Rights Act’s traditional preclearance regime and more recent developments involving Section 2. Some protections remain. Claims based on discriminatory intent are still available, along with provisions addressing language assistance and limited circumstances in which courts can impose preclearance requirements. But Kang says those tools provide considerably less protection than the federal voting rights framework once did.

“If Congress is unlikely to pass a new Voting Rights Act, state voting rights acts may fill the gap,” Kang says, while noting that the protections could vary substantially from one state to another.

That could make state election law increasingly consequential for voters and increasingly important for understanding the differences in how elections are conducted across the country.

Who controls the money?

Kang is also tracking changes in campaign finance law and what they mean for the balance of power among candidates, political parties and outside groups.

The Supreme Court’s decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC expanded the ability of political parties to spend money in coordination with candidates. Kang views the case as notable because both major parties have an interest in strengthening party organizations relative to independent political committees.

The decision could affect how campaigns operate, particularly in closely contested races where party organizations can direct resources strategically. More broadly, Kang remains concerned about the growing role of wealthy donors in American politics and the consequences of continued deregulation of campaign finance.

Who gets to administer the election?

Election administration is another area Kang is following closely.

Voting by mail has become a major legal and political battleground. Kang says there is no indication of widespread fraud associated with mail voting, but the issue has nevertheless become increasingly contentious. He is concerned about attempts to alter the administration of mail-in ballots and the possibility that changes imposed close to an election could be difficult to unwind.

That concern has been reflected in the 2026 litigation. Federal courts have blocked new federal restrictions on mail-in ballot procedures. The Trump administration sought Supreme Court intervention, but the Court ultimately left in place, through the November 2026 election, a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Postal Service from withholding mail ballots from voters.

For Kang, the larger issue is not simply whether a particular voting rule is permissible. It is who has the authority to establish and administer the rules and whether those rules are applied consistently and fairly. He is closely watching whether election administration remains insulated from partisan pressure and whether disputes over election rules continue into the period after the votes are cast.

What comes after Election Day?

Kang’s work ultimately points to a broader way of thinking about elections. The traditional image of an election is relatively simple: candidates campaign, voters cast ballots, the votes are counted and a winner is declared.

But the legal reality is more complicated.

Rules can change. Maps can be challenged. Courts can intervene. Legislatures can attempt to alter the authority of elected officials. Political parties can reshape how campaigns are financed. And disputes over the administration of elections can continue well beyond the day voters go to the polls. Those developments make election law not simply a set of rules for Election Day but a framework for determining how democratic choices are translated into governmental power.

That is the question at the center of Kang’s recent scholarship and one he expects will remain relevant well beyond the 2026 midterms. Quite possibly, the most consequential election law questions may not be answered when the polls close.

They may just be beginning.