Call to Nationalize Elections Sparks Constitutional Debate

President Trump’s recent call for the federal government to nationalize U.S. elections has raised questions about the authority the president has to change the system.

Currently, there has been little clarity regarding what Trump meant by his comments on nationalization, causing confusion about what he’s proposing.

“There’s not a lot of detail from the declarations from the President; it could mean a couple of things,” said Danielle Friedman, legal director of the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“It could mean that elections in all of the states around the country are run under the same rules. It could mean federal rules for all elections, and every state runs its elections the same way, or the other thing it could mean is that federal officials actually perform the work of running the election, federal officials perform the functions that state election workers presently do.”

Each scenario would raise different legal and political questions. “But in every case,” Friedman said, “I think it’s important to underscore that regardless of exactly what it means, the president does not have any authority under the Constitution to nationalize elections.”

The U.S. Constitution draws a clear line on election administration. Article I, Section 4, often referred to as the Elections Clause, gives states the authority to determine the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” for federal offices. Congress retains the power to make or alter those regulations, but the executive branch is not assigned a role.

The president cannot take control of elections on his own, but Congress does have the power to set rules for elections across the country under the Constitution. In the past, Congress used that power to pass laws about voting rights and campaign finance.

Asked how nationalization efforts could affect voter access and public trust, Friedman pointed to ongoing debates over voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements.

“In terms of voter access in some states where there is no voter ID requirement right now, showing voter ID would change the voter experience,” Friedman said. “The bill that passed this week requires voters who are voting absentee they would have to include a photocopy of their voter ID. The heart of the SAVE Act is documentation of proof of citizenship.”

On Wednesday, the House passed the Trump-backed bill, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would dramatically change voting regulations by requiring proof of citizenship at voter registration and significantly curtail mail-in voting.

The legislation, which passed 218 to 213, faces an uphill battle in the Senate.

The SAVE Act would require people to present documents such as a passport or birth certificate to register to vote.

Voting rights advocates warn the measure could create hurdles for millions of Americans.

According to Pew Research, 84% of married women have changed their names, meaning a birth certificate may not match their current legal name on their driver’s license. Meanwhile, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that 21 million Americans do not have a copy of their birth certificate or a passport. Those individuals are more likely to be low-income or people of color, the organization says.

As the debate goes on, legal experts say that while Congress can make some rules for federal elections, the Constitution gives states primary responsibility for running elections.