With the 2026 Legislative Session approaching, MACo is profiling significant issues likely to shape debate in Annapolis. Among them, election administration stands out as a growing operational and fiscal challenge for counties, driven by federal action, court uncertainty, and rising security demands placed squarely on local boards of elections.
The 2026 session opens with heightened attention on elections. The Department of Legislative Services outlines the landscape in its annual Issue Papers, noting new federal actions, ongoing litigation, and state policy changes that directly affect election administration.
While many of these debates play out nationally, counties are responsible for administering elections, funding local boards, and protecting the integrity of the process.
Federal Actions Raise Local Stakes
At the federal level, a March 2025 executive order and proposals such as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act seek to change how states handle voter registration, ballot receipt, and citizenship verification. Litigation has already paused portions of these efforts, but the uncertainty itself creates challenges for election administrators.
Local boards do not control federal policy. They still must prepare for potential shifts in verification standards, ballot timelines, and compliance requirements, often without clarity on funding, technology changes, or implementation timelines.
Even temporary federal actions can force counties to update procedures, retrain staff, adjust voter education materials, and modify systems already stretched thin.
State-Level Changes Add Cost and Complexity
Maryland continues to expand election-related requirements through statute. Recent legislation established broader language-assistance obligations and additional protections related to voting rights. While these policies reflect vital goals, they also carry real operational costs.
Local boards of elections handle staffing, translation services, ballot design, voter outreach, and compliance tracking. Counties fund those efforts. When new requirements take effect without corresponding resources, counties absorb the gap.
Election administration does not scale easily. Small jurisdictions face the exact compliance expectations as larger ones, often with fewer staff and limited technical capacity.
Security Threats Are No Longer Abstract
Election security concerns now extend well beyond equipment and facilities. Local boards face persistent threats ranging from harassment and intimidation of election workers to cyber risks and coordinated misinformation campaigns.
Deepfakes and AI-generated content present a growing challenge. False videos, altered audio, and fabricated images can spread quickly, undermining voter confidence and forcing election officials to respond in real time. Local boards lack dedicated communications teams or cybersecurity units, yet they bear responsibility for countering false narratives while running elections accurately and transparently.
These risks require training, monitoring tools, and coordination with state and federal partners. They also need funding. Counties already finance physical security, secure storage, testing, and post-election audits. Emerging digital threats add another layer of cost and responsibility.
Local Boards Carry the Load
Counties fund and oversee local boards of elections. They hire staff, maintain facilities, procure equipment, and ensure compliance with evolving legal standards. When deadlines move, rules change, or new mandates emerge, counties respond first.
Election administration demands precision, redundancy, and public trust. It does not tolerate shortcuts. Yet counties continue to manage these responsibilities amid budget constraints and competing demands.
What to Watch in 2026
Heading into the 2026 session, MACo will watch closely for:
- New federal requirements that shift administrative burdens to local boards
- Additional State mandates tied to voter access or election security
- Funding decisions that affect staffing, technology, and training
- Proposals responding to misinformation, AI-driven interference, and threats against election workers
Each carries real implications for county budgets and local operations.
The County Lens
Election integrity depends on local execution. Counties do the work that makes elections function. As policymakers consider changes at both the federal and state levels, they must account for the operational and fiscal realities facing local boards of elections.
Strong elections require more than statutory direction. They require sustained investment, clear guidance, and respect for the local systems that deliver the work each cycle.
That perspective will remain central as the General Assembly debates election policy in 2026.
