Trump and Democrats claim to respect the role of states to run elections. Until it’s politically inconvenient.
Confidence requires clarity.
When it comes to “nationalizing” elections, both parties are constitutional purists until they are not.
Federalism is treated as sacred, right up until it becomes an obstacle to winning elections. Then the Constitution’s Elections Clause is rediscovered, Congress suddenly has sweeping authority, and Washington, D.C., must step in to save democracy from the states. The only thing that changes from cycle to cycle is which party is making variations of this argument. And that usually depends on who is in power.
President Donald Trump’s recent call to “nationalize the voting” makes that dynamic very visible. In a Feb. 2 interview with podcaster Dan Bongino, until recently his administration’s deputy FBI director, urged Republicans to “take over the voting” in “at least many, 15 places.”
Trump, with the midterm elections approaching in his second, nonconsecutive term, added, “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
Naturally, Democrats reacted as if he had proposed suspending the Constitution. Many Republicans heard something else: a call for uniform national standards in response to what they argue are weaknesses in state-run systems.
The rhetoric might be dismissed as typical Trumpian bloviating if it were not paired with legislation and executive signaling. The House has passed the SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of American citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and impose a nationwide photo ID requirement to cast a ballot.
The bill would also prohibit the automatic distribution of mail ballots to all registered voters and require an application before a ballot is sent. That change would directly affect eight states and Washington, D.C., which use mailing ballots to registered voters as their default election method. And while the proposal would not eliminate no-excuse absentee voting, it would end automatic ballot mailing in jurisdictions that rely on it.
Supporters describe the measure as a straightforward integrity reform. Critics maintain it would force structural changes in states that have administered all-mail systems for years and add bureaucratic burdens in the name of fraud prevention. Either way, it is unmistakably a federal standard imposed on state-run systems.
Trump has also said he would seek to require voter ID for the November midterm elections “whether Congress approves them or not,” promising executive action without identifying the legal basis. That threat comes from his “I have an …
Confidence requires clarity.
When it comes to “nationalizing” elections, both parties are constitutional purists until they are not.
Federalism is treated as sacred, right up until it becomes an obstacle to winning elections. Then the Constitution’s Elections Clause is rediscovered, Congress suddenly has sweeping authority, and Washington, D.C., must step in to save democracy from the states. The only thing that changes from cycle to cycle is which party is making variations of this argument. And that usually depends on who is in power.
President Donald Trump’s recent call to “nationalize the voting” makes that dynamic very visible. In a Feb. 2 interview with podcaster Dan Bongino, until recently his administration’s deputy FBI director, urged Republicans to “take over the voting” in “at least many, 15 places.”
Trump, with the midterm elections approaching in his second, nonconsecutive term, added, “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
Naturally, Democrats reacted as if he had proposed suspending the Constitution. Many Republicans heard something else: a call for uniform national standards in response to what they argue are weaknesses in state-run systems.
The rhetoric might be dismissed as typical Trumpian bloviating if it were not paired with legislation and executive signaling. The House has passed the SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of American citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and impose a nationwide photo ID requirement to cast a ballot.
The bill would also prohibit the automatic distribution of mail ballots to all registered voters and require an application before a ballot is sent. That change would directly affect eight states and Washington, D.C., which use mailing ballots to registered voters as their default election method. And while the proposal would not eliminate no-excuse absentee voting, it would end automatic ballot mailing in jurisdictions that rely on it.
Supporters describe the measure as a straightforward integrity reform. Critics maintain it would force structural changes in states that have administered all-mail systems for years and add bureaucratic burdens in the name of fraud prevention. Either way, it is unmistakably a federal standard imposed on state-run systems.
Trump has also said he would seek to require voter ID for the November midterm elections “whether Congress approves them or not,” promising executive action without identifying the legal basis. That threat comes from his “I have an …
Trump and Democrats claim to respect the role of states to run elections. Until it’s politically inconvenient.
Confidence requires clarity.
When it comes to “nationalizing” elections, both parties are constitutional purists until they are not.
Federalism is treated as sacred, right up until it becomes an obstacle to winning elections. Then the Constitution’s Elections Clause is rediscovered, Congress suddenly has sweeping authority, and Washington, D.C., must step in to save democracy from the states. The only thing that changes from cycle to cycle is which party is making variations of this argument. And that usually depends on who is in power.
President Donald Trump’s recent call to “nationalize the voting” makes that dynamic very visible. In a Feb. 2 interview with podcaster Dan Bongino, until recently his administration’s deputy FBI director, urged Republicans to “take over the voting” in “at least many, 15 places.”
Trump, with the midterm elections approaching in his second, nonconsecutive term, added, “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
Naturally, Democrats reacted as if he had proposed suspending the Constitution. Many Republicans heard something else: a call for uniform national standards in response to what they argue are weaknesses in state-run systems.
The rhetoric might be dismissed as typical Trumpian bloviating if it were not paired with legislation and executive signaling. The House has passed the SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of American citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and impose a nationwide photo ID requirement to cast a ballot.
The bill would also prohibit the automatic distribution of mail ballots to all registered voters and require an application before a ballot is sent. That change would directly affect eight states and Washington, D.C., which use mailing ballots to registered voters as their default election method. And while the proposal would not eliminate no-excuse absentee voting, it would end automatic ballot mailing in jurisdictions that rely on it.
Supporters describe the measure as a straightforward integrity reform. Critics maintain it would force structural changes in states that have administered all-mail systems for years and add bureaucratic burdens in the name of fraud prevention. Either way, it is unmistakably a federal standard imposed on state-run systems.
Trump has also said he would seek to require voter ID for the November midterm elections “whether Congress approves them or not,” promising executive action without identifying the legal basis. That threat comes from his “I have an …
0 Comments
0 Shares
30 Views
0 Reviews
