Do wartime executive elections influence the likelihood that conflicts end? Using a crisis-bargaining framework, I develop a model to show how bargaining conducted during an election window differs from bargaining that occurs outside of one. The model shows that elections can either facilitate or hinder conflict termination depending on the relative hawkishness of the candidates in the upcoming election because the potential of leader turnover influences the perceived cost of continuing to fight past an election. To test the implications of my theory, I leverage the exogenous timing of fixed-interval executive elections, such as those in the United States, and conduct a Cox proportional hazards analysis of interstate conflicts.