That’s Not How This Works…

In the middle of brokering peace in our time, Trump decided to post about elections yesterday morning on Truth Social, which I looked at to confirm, so you don’t have to! Side note: if you are on the fence about making a Patreon contribution to the site,* keep in mind what we are willing to do to try and analyze all this nonsense! I say this half-jokingly, but it did occur to me as I waded through the sludge to find the post to confirm it was legitimate.

At any rate, and to wit.

Allow me to highlight the following.

Remember, the States are merely an “agent” for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.

Let’s pause and note what is perhaps the most concerning statement amidst a sea of disturbing nonsense. Note the logic (so to speak) that he is deploying here.

1. The states are merely agents of the federal government.
2. Therefore, the states “must do what the Federal Government…tells them.”
3. And the “Federal Government”=”the President of the United States.”

It is not hyperbole to state that these two sentences vitiate both federalism (because the states become nothing more than tools of the central government) and separation of powers (because it makes the president the sole voice of the federal government). This all takes the unitary executive theory to the level of stating a theory of the unitary government being vested in the president. This is an expression of what Guillermo O’Donnell called “delegative democracy” back in 1994 to describe problems he saw in various Latin American presidencies at the time (this is something I have been meaning to write about, and will come back to at some point).

While this kind of assertion power is not new for Trump (a lot of what DOGE did, for example, fell into this sort of thinking), this particular assertion is a huge red flag because he is asserting that he has direct controll not just of portions of the federal government, but also the right to usurp state authorities simpely because he is the embodiment of federal authority (the Congress and such be damned).

Second, this is an assertion of power over elections, which gets to the core of democracy in ways that other actions, as problematic and damaging as they have been, do not.

So, let’s give the Ol’ US Constitution a looksee, shall we? (Yes, I know, how quaint of me).

Article I, Section. 4.

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 to the Places of chusing Senators.

First, this does not establish the states as agents of a centralized voting authority in the US. And, indeed, the US has operated a highly decentralized system with the federal government playing only a minimal role in the actual election process.

In the US, the decisions on things like the types of ballots and machines that are used is state-level (if not sometimes county-level), and all votes are counted and certified at the state level.

Second, yes, Congress can pass laws that would dictate more uniform processes. For example, while Article I, Section 4 does note that “The Times… of holding Elections [of Congress] shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” federal law dictates a uniform election day of the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

As such, it would be my understanding that Congress could pass a law banning mail-in ballots or installing some other kind of uniformity within our elections. But this cannot be done (at least not constitutionally) via mere administrative edict or by Executive Order (and certainly not via social media screed).

There is a lot in his post that could be commented upon. I will note, in passing, the unhinged and yet very damaging ongoing rhetoric about nonexistent mass voter fraud and the weird, gratuitious insertion of the trans athlete issue. That issue makes me think of this John Pavlovitz essay, The Trans Panic: How Conservatives Duped Their Phobic Base and Sacrificed a Vulnerable Minority, and also reminds me of a conversation I had with a family member over Trump (which started about tariffs) which somehow resulted in the person I was arguing with, out of the blue, asking, “Well, you don’t want boys playing in girls sports, do you?” Not only was it a non sequitur in context, but this is a person this person pays previous little attention to sports (the only “sport” they have ever watched with any regularity was figure skating, and they could never understand why I cared so much about football). But they are conservative Evangelicals who are very concerned with trans stuff and related issues. So, to Pavlovitz’s point, it is not hard to see why Trump brings it up.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. Steven L. Taylor, Democracy Scholar Concerned about American Democracy.

*FYI: This is all unpaid labor by me and all the writers to the site. All proceeds go to defraying the cost of site maintenance.