SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
andy biggs
Analysis Identifies 50+ Election Deniers Vying to Oversee Voting Across US
The threat of election-denying candidates is particularly acute in Arizona, where they are running for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.
May 04, 2026
As President Donald Trump continues to push Republicans to aggressively gerrymander ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, a new analysis has found more than 50 candidates running for key offices who have in the past engaged in efforts to nullify election results.
As reported by NPR on Monday, election watchdog States United Action has released a report showing that election-denying candidates are running for offices in 23 states where, if victorious, they would have a direct role in certifying future elections.
States United classifies election deniers as candidates who meet one of five criteria: Falsely claiming that Trump won the 2020 election, spreading conspiracy theories about the election results, refusing to certify the 2020 election, supporting litigation to overturn election results, and refusing to concede a race after being defeated.
In total, States United found at least 53 such candidates running for positions this year, including secretaries of state and governorships, that would put them in position to try to block or impede the certification of elections.
The threat is particularly acute in Arizona, where election deniers are running for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.
This prospective Arizona election denial ticket is headlined by MAGA hardliner Andy Biggs, who voted against certification of the 2020 election results as a US congressman and who is running to unseat incumbent Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.
States United CEO Joanna Lydgate told NPR that her organization is tracking election deniers running for office to "provide voters with the most accurate information possible" and "understand exactly what these candidates stand for and whether they fundamentally believe in free and fair elections in this country."
As election deniers are trying to win key offices throughout the US, the Trump administration is working to get more directly involved in purging voter rolls ahead of the midterms.
According to a Monday report from CNN, "Republicans and the Trump administration are now testing the scope of the federal law that imposes that ban on 'systematic' removal programs within three months of an election, as President Donald Trump pushes for more aggressive reviews of voter rolls for non-citizens and other ineligible voters."
What this means is that states could in theory purge voter rolls just weeks ahead of elections, giving people removed from the rolls almost no time to file challenges.
Wren Orey, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Elections Project, told CNN that purging voter rolls less than three months before an election means there's a high risk that "voters won’t have adequate time or notice to be able to provide the documents that they’ll need ahead of the election."
"Maybe their birth certificate doesn’t meet the requirements," Orey explained. "Maybe they don’t have one handy, maybe they don’t have a passport. That could take months to get."
Brent Ferguson, the senior director of strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center, told CNN that he was particularly disturbed by the Trump White House's involvement in this effort to manage voter rolls.
"It sets up a situation where the federal government itself is the actor trying to purge voters from the rolls in the days before the election," Ferguson said, "which is clearly illegal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nearly Every House Republican Votes for Amendment That Would Slash Medicare, Social Security
"The so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Mar 19, 2026
Nearly every member of the House Republican caucus voted Wednesday in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that experts say would result in massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, nutrition assistance, and other key federal programs.
The proposed amendment, led by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), would effectively prohibit the federal government from deficit spending, with an exception for declared wars. The final House vote on the amendment was 211-207, well short of the two-thirds support required for passage of a constitutional amendment.
Every Republican who took part in Wednesday's vote backed the proposed amendment. Just one Democrat—Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas—joined the GOP in voting yes.
The vote came as congressional Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, continued to reject efforts to halt a war that is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion a day—a price tag that some in the GOP have openly embraced.
The vote also came less than a year after congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump approved a sprawling reconciliation package that delivered another round of tax cuts primarily to the richest Americans and large corporations, while enacting unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
Nonpartisan analysts have estimated that the GOP budget law would add more than $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
“American families don’t need a lecture on fiscal responsibility from the same politicians who just added $4 trillion to the debt with their so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’—one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in American history,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “When it comes to cutting taxes for billionaires, they have never had a problem blowing up the deficit. This amendment is nothing more than a show to cover up their hypocrisy on the debt.”
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said following Wednesday's vote that "the so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits."
"It would force drastic cuts to Medicare, Social Security, food assistance, veterans’ benefits, and other programs American families depend on," said Larson. "My Republican colleagues can say this amendment is about fiscal responsibility all they want, but the reality is that the budget they passed last year ballooned our deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and give ICE a slush fund larger than most nations' militaries."
"Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."
Ahead of the amendment vote, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) warned that the amendment's passage and ratification by US states would "immediately devastate programs that are appropriated annually, such as housing assistance, education, and scientific and medical research."
"And eventually it would require cutting programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and food assistance," the think tank added. "Claims that these programs would ultimately be protected ring hollow, given their share of the budget. If policymakers decide to shield those programs from cuts, the amendment would require lawmakers to devastate the rest of the federal budget—including Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, education, scientific and medical research, farm aid, national parks, transportation, airport security, mine safety—since revenue increases would be so hard to achieve."
Under the proposed amendment, two-thirds support in each chamber of Congress would be required to approve any new tax or increase in the tax rate, hamstringing lawmakers' ability to raise revenue.
"Ultimately, meeting longstanding and broadly popular commitments to seniors’ retirement and healthcare, and managing the future risks associated with higher debt, will require substantially more revenue," said CBPP's Brendan Duke. "This constitutional amendment moves in the opposite direction. Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."
Keep ReadingShow Less
"It's Only 'Free Speech' If You Agree With Them," Says AOC of GOP-Only Town Hall
"The fact is, we work for everybody. If Republican politicians can't get that we work for the public, then the public should give them the boot," said the Democrat from New York.
Mar 19, 2025
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, had sharp words for Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona and two other Arizona elected officials, following reporting that the trio was scheduled to speak at a town hall on Tuesday evening—which only Republicans were allowed to attend.
"It's only 'free speech' if you agree with them. Everyone else gets stripped from their community's town hall," wrote Ocasio-Cortez on X in response to the reporting. "The fact is, we work for everybody. If Republican politicians can't get that we work for the public, then the public should give them the boot."
According to a flyer posted to the Legislative District 12 Republican Committee website, Biggs, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-12), and Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan were slated to speak at a town hall event in Chandler, Arizona on Tuesday evening.
Camaron Stevenson, chief political correspondent for the outlet The Copper Courier, posted a screenshot of the flyer on X on Tuesday, alongside a screenshot of an email from the First Vice Chair of the Arizona Legislative District 12 Republican Committee Patty Porter that reads: "Tonight's townhall is a private event. I have been reminded that only members of the Republican Party will be admitted into the venue."
According to The Phoenix New Times, Porter did not answer queries about why the event was being called a "townhall"—the spelling used by Porter and on the flyer—if it is private.
Neither Petersen nor Biggs responded to requests for comment, according to the outlet, though Biggs called Stevenson's social media post saying that he is "hosting" the town hall "false." He did not address the Republican-only nature of the event, per the New Times.
Stevenson on Tuesday shared a video of an Independent voter who said he registered for the town hall but was turned away after they reviewed his voting history.
This news out of Arizona follows multiple instances where GOP lawmakers have faced angry crowds at town halls, with constituents showing up to express concerns about President Donald Trump's efforts to slash federal programs and personnel.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has encouraged Republican lawmakers to skip the town halls, according to The Associated Press. "They're professional protesters," Johnson said at a news conference in early March. "So why would we give them a forum to do that right now?"
Democrats have sought to capitalize on the development. Minnesota Gov. and 2024 vice presidential candidate Tim Walz recently launched a town hall tour targeting GOP districts and the Democratic National Committee is targeting vulnerable House Republicans with ads that say the lawmakers "won't talk to his/her constituents," according to Tuesday reporting from Axios.
Ocasio-Cortez is set to join Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for five stops of his "Fighting Oligarchy" tour in Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada from Thursday through Saturday.
This article has been updated to correct the quote in the headline.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular