Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules

Opinion

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
white concrete dome museum

Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.

Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.


The Constitution is clear: Congress and states make the rules for federal elections, not presidents. Article 1, Section 4, the “Elections Clause,” gives states primary responsibility for administering elections and Congress the authority to “make or alter” those rules. The framers intentionally excluded the executive branch from this power, because they knew the grave risks of letting the president decide the rules of the game. Their foresight has protected our republic from the kinds of authoritarian power grabs that have undermined democracies around the world.

That safeguard is now being tested.

In March 2025, President Trump issued a sweeping executive order directing federal agencies and state and local election officials to make extensive changes to election rules, including those governing voting equipment, voter registration, mail-in voting, and federal government access to data. The Department of Justice has also pressured states to turn over sensitive voter information and grant access to election systems. Most recently, the president has threatened a second executive order that would, among other things, eliminate mail-in voting and ban “voting machines” altogether.

Trump isn’t the first president to test the boundaries of the Elections Clause. Republicans criticized former President Biden’s 2021 executive order that directed federal agencies to facilitate voter registration and voter education in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act. Without congressional guardrails, future presidents of either party will be tempted to go even further.

Elections run best when states are in charge. State officials are accountable directly to voters, communities, and legislatures – not to whoever controls the White House. Executive branch interference undermines that accountability, creates confusion for voters and candidates, and can place nearly impossible burdens and unfunded mandates on state and local election officials.

The consequences go beyond public trust. If presidents can unilaterally tilt the rules to favor themselves, the fairness of elections collapses – and so does confidence in democracy itself.

If Congress fails to defend its constitutional role, presidents of both parties will continue to push the limits. There is a straight-forward solution to this. Issue One’s We the People Playbook calls for Congress to pass legislation that: (1) reaffirms Congress’ exclusive authority over federal election rules; and (2) nullifies unilateral executive orders that attempt to change how elections are run.

Voters agree. A recent Issue One and YouGov poll found that a majority (51%) oppose presidents changing how states run elections by executive order, with only 35% supporting it.

The Constitution created checks and balances for a reason: to prevent any one branch – or any one person – from controlling the machinery of democracy. To safeguard elections in 2026 and beyond, Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority now, before this or any future president pushes the boundaries further.

Voters have an important role to play as well. They should demand that their representatives defend and protect the Elections Clause, resist executive overreach, no matter which party holds the White House, and keep authority over elections where it belongs: with the states and Congress. Because America’s democracy works best when no president — Republican or Democrat — can rewrite the rules of the game.

Michael McNulty is Policy Director at Issue One, advancing bipartisan policy solutions by providing expert analysis, building strategic relationships, and supporting advocacy and legislative efforts through research and policy development. McNulty previously served as a senior elections advisor in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where he led the development of tools to support democratic elections, spearheaded global democracy initiatives, and shaped election-related programs and policy responses across Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and Latin America.


Read More

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less