By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump has expressed a desire for Republicans to “take over” and “nationalize” voting, citing unsubstantiated concerns about election fraud. However, legal experts have stated that such actions would violate the U.S. Constitution, which delegates election administration authority to the states. While Congress can enact laws to modify election regulations, it does not possess the power to nationalize the electoral process itself. These comments have revived concerns about Trump’s ongoing challenges to election outcomes and his potential influence on upcoming elections.
Read the original article here
It seems the prevailing sentiment among many legal minds is that the idea of former President Trump attempting to nationalize elections is, to put it mildly, outside the bounds of his authority. When we look at the structure of the American system, the Constitution and established legal frameworks are designed to prevent such a move. The idea of one individual, even a former president, unilaterally seizing control of the electoral process across the entire nation simply doesn’t align with the principles of federalism and the division of powers that are so central to how the United States operates.
The core argument, as understood from legal perspectives, is that election administration is largely a state-level responsibility. While there are federal laws that govern certain aspects, particularly concerning voting rights and the certification of results, the day-to-day management, the setting of polling locations, the printing of ballots, and the counting of votes are all functions delegated to individual states. This decentralized approach is a fundamental safeguard against a concentration of power that could be used to manipulate or suppress the democratic process.
Furthermore, even if one were to imagine a scenario where a president sought to assert national control over elections, the legal mechanisms for doing so are simply not present. There isn’t a law on the books, nor is there any constitutional provision, that grants the executive branch the power to supersede state authority in this manner. The very concept of “nationalizing” elections in this context would be a radical departure from centuries of established practice and constitutional interpretation.
It’s understandable why the discussion arises, especially given past events and rhetoric surrounding elections. There’s a palpable concern that attempts to exert undue influence or to create alternative narratives about election legitimacy are ongoing. However, the distinction between attempting to influence, to cast doubt, or to enact legally dubious actions, and having the actual legal authority to nationalize an election, is a crucial one. Lawyers are pointing out that these are fundamentally different things.
The repeated assertion that Trump lacks the authority to nationalize elections is not just a matter of opinion; it’s rooted in a deep understanding of constitutional law. The powers of the presidency are defined and limited, and actions that fall outside those defined boundaries are, by their very nature, unauthorized. This doesn’t mean that such actions won’t be attempted or that the rhetoric won’t continue, but it does mean that from a legal standpoint, there is no legitimate basis for such an attempt.
However, a significant point of discussion and concern that emerges is the perceived gap between what is legally permissible and what might actually happen in practice. Many observers express a sense of frustration that the assertion of a lack of authority doesn’t necessarily equate to an inability to act. The idea that “he has no authority to do half the things he does, but no one can stop him” encapsulates this worry. It suggests that while the legal framework may be clear, the enforcement and the willingness of institutions to uphold those boundaries are less certain.
This leads to the troubling notion that even if lawyers clearly state that something is beyond a president’s authority, that statement itself might not be a sufficient deterrent. The experience of the past few years has, for many, eroded confidence in the effectiveness of legal checks and balances when faced with determined challenges. The worry is that the “rules” and the “constitution” might be disregarded, and that the consequences for such disregard may not be swift or certain.
The concept of “smokescreen” also comes up, suggesting that such pronouncements about nationalizing elections might serve a political purpose rather than a practical one. They could be intended to energize a base, to create a pretext for future challenges, or to distract from other issues. The idea that these pronouncements are made with the knowledge that they lack legal standing, but with the expectation that they will have a political impact, is a significant concern.
The effectiveness of the existing guardrails is being questioned. When legal experts point to clear boundaries, but there’s a feeling that those boundaries are being tested or even ignored with impunity, it creates a sense of unease about the robustness of the democratic system. The question of who will stop such actions, and whether the established institutions have the will or the capacity to do so, is a recurring theme in these discussions.
Ultimately, while legal experts are unequivocal in stating that the authority to nationalize elections does not exist within the framework of American law for any president, the conversation is heavily colored by the concern that the absence of authority does not guarantee the absence of action. The challenge, as many see it, lies not in the legal definition of presidential powers, but in the practical enforcement of those definitions and the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of significant challenges.