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

Federal Register Reports being printed out of a large machine.

Congress should strengthen the administrative state by writing clearer laws, limiting delegated authority, and requiring periodic reauthorization of agency powers.

Photo courtesy of Luka Jacobi-Krohn

Putting the Guardrails Back on Delegations of Power

Congress needs to write better laws instead of dismantling the administrative state.

Debates over the administrative state focus on whether these agencies have accrued too much power. Some argue that the solution is to severely weaken or, in extreme scenarios, dismantle these federal agencies. However, the issue is not the existence of these agencies but actually how Congress writes its laws. When statutes are drafted with vague language, agencies are left to interpret the scope, and courts are forced to set the boundaries. This results in constant litigation and generally regulatory instability. If Congress actually wants a more durable and accountable regulatory system, they need to start with themselves by writing clearer laws.

Keep ReadingShow less
Businesspeople walking in line across world map, painted on asphalt

America's immigration debate reflects a deeper question: Does America still believe in itself? A historical look at immigration, assimilation, and American identity.

Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images

What Immigration Debates Reveal About National Confidence

America has spent 250 years arguing about immigrants.

But beneath the arguments about visas, walls, asylum claims, deportations, and border security lies a more uncomfortable question:

Keep ReadingShow less
The U.S. flag, waving, with the ends of it frayed.

The U.S. is falling short of what its national wealth makes possible for its people.

Americans Are Not As Well Off As People in Peer Nations – Us Safety Net’s Shortfalls Show Up in Global Data

As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, the global data we collect and analyze shows that the country is failing to “promote the general Welfare,” as the Constitution’s framers promised a little more than a decade later.

We are scholars of human rights. Alongside the Human Rights Measurement Initiative, a nonprofit that tracks how well more than 200 countries and territories are meeting the human rights commitments their governments have made, we annually update scores measuring whether people can actually get the basics of a decent life, such as healthcare, adequate food and a quality education.

Keep ReadingShow less
No Party. No Big Money. No Problem: How an Independent Mayor Beat the Machine in Ridgecrest

Dr. Travis Endicott, Mayor of Ridgecrest, California

Photo provided

No Party. No Big Money. No Problem: How an Independent Mayor Beat the Machine in Ridgecrest

Much of the national conversation about independent politics focuses on candidates. Less attention goes to the independents who have already won and are now doing the actual work of governing without a party behind them.

This is the first installment in a new IVN series profiling independent elected officials in an attempt to address that shortcoming.

Keep ReadingShow less