When it comes to who controls elections in the United States, Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution seems pretty unambiguous.
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (sic) Senators,” the nation’s foundational document asserts.
Legal experts have long taken that to mean that the executive branch has no role in election administration and that it remains mainly the province of state government.
But that didn’t stop President Donald Trump from doubling down this week on his earlier unprecedented call to nationalize elections, as he suggested, without providing evidence, that the federal government should “get involved” in elections that he believes are “riddled with corruption.”
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, the Republican president argued that if states, which have administered elections since the beginning of the republic, “can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over,” according to The New York Times and other outlets.
“Look at some of the places — that horrible corruption on elections — and the federal government should not allow that,” he added. “The federal government should get involved.”
Election administrators of both parties from coast to coast did double-takes at Trump’s remarks, which came even as the White House tried to walk them back, and as the top Republican in the U.S. Senate tried to defuse them.
That included Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin, the Bay State’s top elections official, who told MassLive that he’s “extremely concerned” Trump is laying the groundwork to interfere in this fall’s midterm elections and the 2028 presidential election beyond that.
“I think what he means is getting the result he wants,” Galvin, a Democrat, said.
Galvin announced this week that he’ll seek a record ninth term this year to act as a hedge against future White House incursions against elections in the Bay State.
“And I think we don’t have to go any further than the conversation he had (in 2020) with (Georgia Secretary of State Brad) Raffensperger, where he said, ‘Can you find me 11,000 votes,” Galvin continued. “I’m paraphrasing, but I think I’ve got the gist of what he said.
“I think we’re getting the message, it’s ‘I don’t care if I win, as long as I win,” Galvin continued. “That’s the Trump mantra, and that’s all he cares about.”
Can he do it?
The short answer? “No,” Jeremy Paul, who teaches constitutional law at Northeastern University Law School, told MassLive.
But as is frequently the case with Trump, there are other factors at play.
“Part of his style is to take extremely outlandish positions and hope that people who are his most fervent supporters will figure out some way to move things slightly more in his direction,” Paul said, pointing to Trump’s bellicose rhetoric on Greenland, which apparently resulted in the “framework of a future deal” with NATO. That announcement was long on good vibes, but short on concrete details.
“That’s sort of very much his style,” Paul continued. “And then … everybody else will feel grateful that the extreme thing that he suggested didn’t, in fact, happen.”
Stephen Richer, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School, offered a similar analysis.
“I don’t think the president has ever been somebody who’s been terribly concerned with process,” Richer, a Republican who formerly served as the top elections official in Maricopa County, told MassLive.
“I think he’s very much an outcome person, which, perhaps, in the business world, is maybe endearing and sometimes advantageous,” he continued. “But obviously, in the political world, process and authority matter very much.”
“Elections always have been at the cornerstone of his political identity, especially since 2020,” Richer concluded. “I think that he continues to contribute to the narrative that is important for him to hold, for his supporters to hold, that he’s simply impregnable and surely couldn’t have lost to Joe Biden and so has to keep justifying that (and) adding fuel to that fire.”
The big reason it matters
Some veteran observers suggested that Trump might be trying to shake loose a vote on a bill, now stalled in the U.S. Senate, that critics say could dramatically impact voting rights for women and minority groups.
The SAVE Act, as it’s known, is being sold as a way to crack down on vanishingly rare cases of voter fraud — when its true purpose is to make it harder for millions of Americans to vote.
As it’s currently written, the legislation would require Americans to provide a birth certificate, a passport or some other proof of citizenship to register or re-register to vote, according to The Guardian.
But according to a Brennan Center for Justice analysis, as many as 21 million Americans don’t have immediate access to those documents.
And while a little more than 8% of self-identified white American citizens don’t have citizenship documents readily available, that number jumps to nearly 11% among Americans of color, the analysis found.
While his home state of Arizona has long required documented proof of citizenship, Richer said the bill has “other components, depending on the version, that make it problematic.”
Women voters, who vote in larger numbers than men, may also face more specific challenges. That’s because as many as 69 million women who have taken their spouse’s name do not have a birth certificate matching their legal name, according to an analysis by the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
“The legislation does not mention the potential option for these Americans to present change-of-name documentation or a marriage certificate in combination with a birth certificate to prove their citizenship,” the think-tank noted.
Bradford Wyatt, a Republican National Committeeman from Boylston, also thinks Trump is trying to push for action on the SAVE Act, and is “trying to make sure that the states have processes in place for fair, transparent elections.”
“Often, President Trump can utilize extreme language to bring attention to issues like the SAVE Act,” Wyatt told MassLive.
The politics of it
On Capitol Hill, Democrats, eyeing a return to power this fall, pounced on Trump’s remarks.
“Trump sees the writing on the wall,” U.S. Rep. Katherine Clark, D-5th District, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, wrote in a post to X. “He knows his economy is a disaster. He knows he’s inflicting chaos in our communities. He knows he’s losing. So now, he’s trying to rig elections.”
The skepticism extends to the other side of Capitol Hill. It also crosses party lines.
First, here’s U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
“He’s saying the quiet part out loud: Trump and MAGA Republicans can’t win with their unpopular policies at the ballot box, so they want to steal the 2026 election,” the Malden pol wrote in a post to X.
And here’s U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
“That’s not what the Constitution says about elections,” Paul said during a Tuesday interview with MSNow.
Paul acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court has delved into the differences between federal and state elections. The high court ruled, for instance, that “Washington State can’t set term limits on federal officials if Georgia doesn’t. It has to be uniform election law.”
“But as far as the time, place and manner, that, under the Constitution, is a state activity,” Paul said.
But what about the SAVE Act?
The odds of backers overcoming the Senate’s 60-vote threshold seem pretty long. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the upper chamber.
But Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who sounded a skeptical note on Trump’s nationalized elections rhetoric, does appear to be looking for a workaround.
Republicans could force Democrats to actively hold the Senate floor for hours on end if they attempt to block the SAVE Act — a move known as a “standing filibuster,” according to The Hill.
“We got some members, as you know, who’ve expressed an interest in that, so we’re going to have a conversation about it, but there weren’t any commitments made, no,” Thune said Tuesday, according to The Hill.
Back in Boston, Galvin is staying vigilant.
“I am the senior election administrator in the country,” he said. “I intend to use my status … to speak out on these issues wherever they are attempted.”
(John L. Micek is a Political columnist)
(Source: MassLive)
Be the first to comment