OPINION:
President Donald Trump said on a podcast interview with his former FBI deputy director, Dan Bongino, that “Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” a remark made in context of discussing the dwindling integrity of America’s elections and the recent execution of a FBI search warrant and seizure of ballots from 2020 that were cast and counted in Fulton County, Georgia.
Trump’s frustration is understood, and shared. But nationalizing elections is not a win for the American voter.
It’s true that the electoral process has become, due to Democrats, a suspicious affair of mail-in ballots, electronic voting, absentee balloting and the ridiculous shift of Election Day to election week or election month. It’s true that redistricting and gerrymandering, not to mention the left’s on-call band of lawyers who stand at the ready to challenge any election that doesn’t result in the Democrat as the winner — it’s true that these factors contribute to a banana republic-like election atmosphere. It’s also true that the 2020 election was a scandalous affair, driven by Democrats’ exploitation of Covid to mess with election law, election policy, election rules to the point where Team Trump filed dozens of lawsuits that challenged results — only to have zero; repeat, zero, heard in court. And that’s not because the challenges weren’t worthy of being heard in court; it’s because political winds wouldn’t allow these challenges to go forth, not even in Pennsylvania, where election laws had clearly been broken.
So it’s all true that America’s election system is in need of a shape-up.
But putting feds in charge and adopting a top-down approach to governance rarely works in the favor of the American people, or of the cause of liberty, at least, not in the long term.
The Constitution makes pretty clear that states are in charge of elections. It’s in Article One, Section Four, Clause One, and it goes like this: “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 the places of choosing senators.” The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in further on this elections’ clause, putting more responsibility — powers — for the electoral process in the hands of states.
So there is that.
There’s also the concept of limited government that founders provided, based in part on the idea that the majority of authorities and powers not specifically vested in the government, or granted to the federal branch, remained in the hands of the states — Tenth Amendment — and the people — Ninth Amendment. The general theme is that framers of the Constitution saw a bottom-up, not top-down, means of governing as the best way of holding politicians accountable, and ensuring the political classes’ actions were transparent. The bigger the government, the less powerful the people; the larger the government, the smaller the voices of the people; the more bloated the government, the more burdens to the people.
Another reason to oppose nationalizing elections?
There are other actions that can be taken to secure the electoral system without taking the DEFCON 1 approach and putting feds in charge. Among: purging voter rolls, passing voter ID laws, insisting on paper ballots, returning to a single Election Day, prosecuting cheaters. Also among — and Trump is already addressing these: securing borders, booting out illegals, waging campaigns against activist judges. There are more, many more actions that can be taken to secure elections, both long-term and short-term, but the idea is that so long as there are other actions that can be taken, and so long as there are other fights that can be waged and hopefully, won, then taking the dramatic step of “nationalizing elections” should stay on the back burner.
That’s a last resort; the Hail Mary move.
Remember — and this is maybe one of the most crucial points to keep in mind before putting federal authorities in charge of anything — one day, the political winds will shift.
Republicans won’t hold the majorities in Congress forever.
Trump won’t be in the White House much longer.
Do we really want a Democrat like Joe Biden or Barack Obama in charge of elections? Do we truly think a leftist like Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer will keep their federal powers in check if they have a rubber stamp to control and oversee elections?
That’s when the citizens will really lose.
Nationalizing is rarely a win for individualism, for liberty, or for the state of the democratic-republic. If we can’t have less government, then at least the fight should be for government to stay as local-level as possible.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter and podcast by clicking HERE. Her latest book, “God-Given Or Bust: Defeating Marxism and Saving America With Biblical Truths,” is available by clicking HERE.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.