For as long as I can remember, conservatives have believed that small government, one closer to the people, was best. At least, that used to be the way conservatives approached governance; not so much anymore. Even back in the early days of our country, the Framers of our Constitution struck a balance between the larger powers of a centralized national bureaucracy and localized state government closer to the people. It was an elegant “diffusing of power” that slightly ebbs and flows even today, depending on who is in power and on specific Supreme Court rulings.
However, there are divisions of responsibilities that are clearly spelled out in our Constitution, and one of those is who is charged with overseeing elections. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” Historically, Congress has played a role in facilitating access for voters through statute and constitutional amendments. The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Constitutional Amendments are just some examples of this. Election policy, not election administration.
But let’s try and imagine a Federal Elections Administration Agency. I say imagine one, because there is no federal agency that administers elections in the United States today. It doesn’t exist. And that is not a bad thing.
Think about it: there are 50 states, over 3,100 counties and county-equivalents, and almost 20,000 cities, towns, and villages recognized by the Census Bureau. There are also numerous school boards, special districts, and state offices—the list goes on. Imagine one giant federal agency, one computer system with all our voter data, tasked with carrying out all elections: processing voter registration forms from hundreds of millions of voters, sending out ballot statements and sample ballots, handling voter centers and polling places, and securing, collecting, and tabulating every ballot cast in the United States of America.
Any conservative who thinks that this is a good idea needs to turn in their conservative credentials. Even having the feds step in in “areas of concern” has the stench of political retribution all over it. Not to mention, there is no election infrastructure at the federal level, and the cost of implementing one would be staggering.
During the pandemic, H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2021,” was a Democratic-led effort to add multiple federal provisions to voting. President Trump himself spoke against it, stating, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, published a commentary on H.R. 1 that began with, “We always knew that liberals considered federalizing control over elections to be an important priority.” The commentators go on to say that for years they had testified before Congress about progressive designs to take over control from state election officials. Progressives long for federal mandates over how we vote, when we vote, and who gets to collect absentee ballots.
Federalizing elections is not any better now that a Republican president wants it.
And he wants it. Over the last few months, President Trump has posted on social media and stated in multiple interviews that Republicans should nationalize elections and take them over from the states. His administration is demanding voter data from primarily Democratic states, raiding the election offices of Fulton County, Georgia, and stating repeatedly that there is widespread voter fraud that we need to be “saved” from.
Related Articles
California’s once soaring population has hit a plateau. So will its national political clout Sanctuary policies broke the system – but federal overreach won’t solve the problem California is far from reaching its recycling target — and that’s OK Trump’s embrace of economic leftism will destroy his legacy Keep your politics out of my sports In a recent ruling that blocked some of President Trump’s election-related executive orders, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote, “The Framers of our Constitution recognized that power over election rules could be abused, either to destroy the national government or to disempower the people from acting as a check on their elected representative.”Recent election results seem to point toward the fact that the people are starting to act as a check on what they are witnessing daily, and I cannot imagine anything scaring those in power more. The “voter fraud crisis” is going to gain momentum as we approach the 2026 midterms.
The stage is being set to either take over certain states or counties that seem to be drifting away from the president, or completely refuse to accept certified election results and delay the swearing-in of duly elected representatives. Congress needs to step up, start doing their job, and send a clear message: overzealous federal interference in any elections will not be tolerated.
Carolyn Cavecche previously served as mayor of the city of Orange and as CEO and president of the Orange County Taxpayers Association.
Hence then, the article about carolyn cavecche why conservatives must reject nationalized elections was published today ( ) and is available on Los Angeles Daily News ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Carolyn Cavecche: Why conservatives must reject nationalized elections )
Also on site :
- OPEC+ agrees to raise oil output by 206,000 bpd from April
- AI is gobbling up the world’s memory chips, sending smartphone prices to record highs, report says
- Quds Brigades: Aggression against Iran targets every entity that pulsates with hatred for colonialism, hegemony, refuses to submit to arrogance