On February 1st, President Trump stated the following on Dan Bongino’s podcast:
“The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over, we should take over the voting, the voting in at least many, 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
These statements represent a significant escalation from Trump’s prior support for legislation such as the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act sought to require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, with the goal of preventing voter fraud by ensuring that only eligible citizens could vote. In contrast, Trump’s recent remarks explicitly advocate a federal takeover of election administration, constituting a substantial departure from previously proposed or supported measures.
Implementing Trump’s suggestions would uproot constitutional principles. The Constitution assigns primary responsibility for election administration to the states, only granting Congress the authority to modify state regulations when necessary. The President does not have any constitutional authority to manage elections. Thus, Trump’s proposal to 'nationalize' or take over voting directly conflicts with this established framework. Under prevailing legal interpretations, it would be unlawful for a president to assume control of elections. Federal courts have previously overruled similar attempts by Trump to exceed the limits of presidential authority.
- Specifically, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 states:
- “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…” and “…but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.”
Clearly, a presidential order to “take over” elections would exceed executive authority.
But what can Congress actually do to alter “such Regulations”? Congress can pass laws regulating federal elections (e.g., the Voting Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act), but even Congress cannot simply abolish state election administration; it can only regulate the “times, places, and manner” of elections. Congress may set uniform national rules for federal elections, but it cannot give the President control over election administration, nor can it abolish state-run election systems. States would still run the machinery of elections unless Congress created a massive new federal administrative structure—something never attempted in U.S. history.
- Therefore, Trump’s proposal, as stated—Republicans “taking over” elections or “nationalizing” voting—has no constitutional basis and would be struck down if attempted by presidential action. His comments represent a direct challenge to the constitutional design of decentralized elections. Even some Republicans immediately rejected the idea. Representative Don Bacon stated:
“I opposed nationalizing elections when Speaker Pelosi wanted major changes to elections in all 50 states. I’ll oppose this now as well.”
This bipartisan resistance underscores a deeper truth: the fight over who controls elections is no longer just a policy disagreement. It is part of a much larger struggle over American federalism—a struggle that now shapes debates over immigration, public health, environmental regulation, and education. Elections have simply become the most symbolically charged battleground.
We are living in an era of situational federalism, where both parties invoke states' rights or federal power depending entirely on which position benefits them at the moment. Situational federalism occurs when political actors change their stance on whether issues should be managed at the state or federal level based on what is more advantageous at the time. For example, when Democrats advanced the For the People Act, Republicans defended state control. Now, with Trump calling for nationalization, Democrats defend state control. Thus, both parties often interpret the Constitution in ways that selectively emphasize certain principles to suit their current political needs.
The push to "standardize" elections, whether from the left or the right, unfortunately, is a current theme of our partisan politics. One side fears voter suppression while the other fears voter fraud. The one thing they have in common is the mutual fear of the other side's control of the process. When trust erodes, the gravitational pull toward centralization grows stronger. This trend is not new, as illustrated by the 2000 U.S. presidential election, in which the Supreme Court's involvement in deciding the outcome highlighted vulnerabilities in state-run elections.
The partisan rancor will persist, but our Constitution must prevail:
- States administer elections. Congress sets rules.
- The President has no role.
A reasonable debate in Congress about the areas where it does have authority is both responsible and constitutionally sound. These include:
Voter Registration Rules Congress could:
- Require documentary proof of citizenship.
- Mandate automatic voter registration.
- Set uniform registration deadlines.
- Standardize list-maintenance procedures
These fall squarely under the “manner” of elections.
Voting Methods and Equipment Standards: Under HAVA, Congress already sets minimum standards. It could go further by:
- Requiring paper ballots nationwide
- Mandating risk-limiting audits
- Setting uniform cybersecurity requirements
- Standardizing voting machine certification
National Rules for Early and Mail Voting: Congress could:
- Require a minimum number of early-voting days
- Standardize mail-ballot request procedures.
- Set uniform postmark deadlines.
- Require ballot tracking systems.
National Election Day Rules: Congress could:
- Make Election Day a federal holiday.
- Standardize polling place hours.
Congressional Districting Rules Congress could:
- Ban partisan gerrymandering
- Require independent redistricting commissions.
- Establish uniform redistricting criteria.
Voter Protection and Anti-Fraud Measures Congress could:
- Strengthen ID requirements (if uniform)
- Increase penalties for interference.
- Standardize chain-of-custody procedures
But Congress cannot:
- Give the President control over elections.
- Abolish state election administration.
- Dictate how states choose presidential electors.
- Impose rules that violate constitutional protections.
Elections are central to democratic governance, serving as the primary mechanism through which the public exercises its voice and authority. When the integrity of this process is perceived as compromised or subject to partisan control, the foundational principles of democracy are threatened. Such challenges undermine the core tenet that elected officials derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
A functioning democracy relies on public confidence that elections are fair, constitutionally grounded, and insulated from the ambitions of any individual leader. The Framers recognized that centralizing electoral control in a single executive would invite abuse, which is why they intentionally distributed authority among thousands of local jurisdictions and vested Congress, rather than the President, with the power to establish electoral safeguards.
Trump’s proposal is fundamentally at odds with the Constitution. It is not only constitutionally unsound but also poses significant risks to democratic governance. When a president openly advocates 'taking over' elections, the issue extends beyond testing the boundaries of executive authority; it challenges the very limits of presidential power. The foundation of a healthy republic is that no leader, irrespective of party or popularity, can appropriate control of the electoral process for partisan gain.
At a time when public trust in institutions is precarious, the nation cannot tolerate rhetoric that frames elections as assets to be captured by a single political party. The resilience of American democracy has always depended on the principle that electoral rules are determined by the people, not by the president. Upholding this principle is not merely a partisan responsibility; it is essential to the preservation of democracy itself.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
