Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

What Will It Take To Truly Negotiate Paid Leave? Getting to "Yes" on Three Questions
blue and yellow i heart you print textile
Photo by Sandy Millar on Unsplash

What Will It Take To Truly Negotiate Paid Leave? Getting to "Yes" on Three Questions

Everyone in the United States deserves time to care for themselves and their loved ones, whether to see a baby’s first smile or hold the hand of a parent who takes their last. This month, Virginia became one of a growing number of U.S. jurisdictions enacting statewide paid leave programs—forward-looking states that have taken matters into their own hands in the absence of a federal policy that the vast majority of the public across party lines wants and has wanted for quite some time.

Beginning in 2028, Virginia will join its regional mid-Atlantic neighbors, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York in guaranteeing this basic protection to millions of workers caring for a new child, a loved one, or their own serious health need. Pennsylvania’s legislature, too, is moving paid leave legislation, and with bipartisan support. Evidence shows that paid family and medical leave programs offer multiple sources of value to workers, families, businesses, and communities.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Colombia to Connecticut: The urgent need to end FGM in the Americas

Journalists gather in front of the Connecticut State Capitol Building during a press conference on SB259 and an anti-FGM art installation

Bryna Subherwal, Equality Now

From Colombia to Connecticut: The urgent need to end FGM in the Americas

Across the Americas, hundreds of thousands of women and girls are living with or have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM). These affected populations are citizens and residents of countries where protections are incomplete, entirely focused on criminalisation, inconsistently enforced, or entirely absent.

FGM is not a “foreign” issue. It is a human rights violation unfolding within national borders, one that all governments in the Americas have the legal and moral responsibility to address.

Keep ReadingShow less
House Democrats and Republicans Clash over Free Speech in Higher Education

Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, addresses the chamber in front of a portrait of George Miller.

(Matthew Junkroski / MEDILL)

House Democrats and Republicans Clash over Free Speech in Higher Education

WASHINGTON — Witnesses and representatives sat in silence as Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, spoke about how universities should strive for intellectual diversity and introduce controversial ideas. Rep. Alma S. Adams, D-N.C., agreed with his rhetoric, but went on to criticize her Republican colleagues for standing in the way of free expression.

“Unfortunately, what we often see, especially in hearings like this, is not a good faith effort to strike that balance, but a selective narrative,” Adams said. “My colleagues on the other side of the aisle frequently claim that there’s a free speech crisis on college campuses, arguing that universities lack viewpoint diversity and silence certain perspectives.”

Keep ReadingShow less