What is Trump's end game in seeking to bring elections under federal gov't control? | DW News

Key Concepts

• Federalism: The division of powers between a federal government and state governments.
• Partisan Gerrymandering: The practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to favor one political party.
• Racial Gerrymandering: The practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to dilute the voting power of racial minorities.
• Voter ID Laws: Laws requiring voters to present identification at the polls.
• Disenfranchisement: The denial of the right to vote.
• Constitutional Amendment: A change to the US Constitution, requiring a complex process of proposal and ratification.
• Executive Order: A directive issued by the President that manages operations of the federal government.

President Trump’s Call for Nationalized Elections & Related Legal/Political Issues

The segment begins with former President Trump advocating for the federal government to take control of US elections, arguing states cannot guarantee election integrity. He specifically cites alleged issues in Detroit, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), and Atlanta, claiming “crooked elections” and referencing unsubstantiated claims from the 2020 presidential election. Trump asserts states are merely “agents” of the federal government in elections and questions why the federal government doesn’t manage them directly. He repeatedly alleges widespread voter fraud without providing evidence. He stated, “I want to see elections be honest. And if a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it…when you see crooked elections, and we had plenty of them…rigged, crooked elections.”

Constitutional & Legal Framework of US Elections

Professor Karen Seabold clarifies that Trump’s proposal is not constitutionally sound. The US operates under a federalist system where election administration is primarily a state and local responsibility, as outlined by the Constitution. While the federal government has a role in protecting the right to vote (through amendments like the Voting Rights Act), any intervention must be enacted through Congress and the states, not through presidential decree. Seabold notes a previous attempt by the President to issue an executive order regarding voter ID and mail-in ballots was “largely rebuked by the courts.” She emphasizes that the Constitution hasn’t been amended since the 1980s and amendments are rare, making significant changes to the election system difficult.

Impact of Disputed Election Claims on Democracy

The discussion highlights the detrimental effect of repeatedly claiming elections are “rigged.” Seabold explains that constant repetition of these claims, amplified by media outlets, can “chill voting” and increase distrust in elections and the government. She warns that widespread belief in a “illegitimate” government poses significant problems for both domestic stability and international relations.

Redistricting & Gerrymandering

The segment addresses the Supreme Court’s decision to allow California’s congressional maps to stand, despite their favoring of Democrats. Seabold explains the Court essentially followed precedent, allowing partisan gerrymandering (drawing districts to favor a party) as legally permissible. However, the Court avoided ruling on the issue of racial gerrymandering, raising the burden of proof required to demonstrate racial discrimination in redistricting. She states, “Jerrymandering that is just a fact of… electoral life in the United States and that power remains with the state.” She notes the process is historically characterized by compromise, but increasing political polarization is making consensus harder to achieve.

Federal Intervention in Georgia Election Records

The segment details the unusual seizure of 2020 election ballots and records from Fulton County, Georgia, by federal agents. Seabold describes this as an “extraordinary step” not typically seen unless voting rights are being denied. She notes the Department of Justice hasn’t taken such action in decades, and the legality of the seizure is likely to be challenged in court. The segment presents opposing viewpoints: supporters argue it protects election integrity, while critics fear intimidation and public mistrust. Seabold frames the issue as a difficult balance between proving fraud and protecting states’ rights.

Voter ID Laws & Disenfranchisement

The discussion turns to voter ID laws, common in many democracies, but controversial in the US. Seabold explains the opposition stems from concerns about disenfranchising voters, particularly those who are low-income, mobile, or young, who may face difficulties obtaining or updating required identification. She states, “There are so many people that, you know, they move on a frequent basis, they don't update their ID…maybe they can't access an ID for one reason or another.” While acknowledging concerns about potential voter fraud, she emphasizes the historical US preference for expanding access to voting rather than restricting it.

Rethinking US Elections & Historical Context

The segment concludes by considering whether the US election system needs to be fundamentally rethought. Seabold acknowledges the system is outdated and decentralized, but emphasizes the challenges of amending the Constitution. She notes the founders intentionally designed a system where states managed elections due to logistical constraints at the time. She concludes that while minor changes are possible, a complete federal takeover of elections would face “fierce battles.”

Synthesis/Conclusion:

The segment reveals a complex interplay of legal, political, and historical factors surrounding US elections. Former President Trump’s call for federal control is legally questionable and raises concerns about undermining democratic principles. While the federal government has a role in protecting voting rights, the Constitution vests primary responsibility for election administration with the states. Ongoing debates about redistricting, voter ID laws, and federal intervention highlight the inherent tensions between ensuring election integrity, protecting voter access, and respecting states’ rights. The segment underscores the fragility of public trust in elections and the potential for unsubstantiated claims to erode democratic institutions.