Election Showdown: Trump Demands Republicans Control Voting in 15 States

Paul Riverbank, 2/4/2026 Trump’s call for Republicans to “take over” voting escalates the debate on who should run America’s elections. While local control is imperfect, it remains our best defense against undue influence—reminding us that messy democracy can also be its strongest safeguard.

While these remarks come as no surprise given Trump’s persistent (and unsubstantiated) claims that the 2020 election was stolen, they stir up an old and thorny question that has never fully left the American conscience: Should elections be managed close to home, or should there be a single rulebook for the whole country?

For most of American history, the answer has landed closer to local control. The Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 4, gives state legislatures the first crack at these decisions — from the time polls open to how voter rolls are maintained. Congress can intervene, but rarely does, and has mostly left trenches like voting machines and ballot designs to the states, and quite often down to the counties.

This isn’t just a quirk of tradition. Local quirks abound — anyone who has stood in line in urban Atlanta or rural Nebraska can vouch that the voting experience depends a good deal on your ZIP code. There’s no federal agency managing the show, unlike Canada — where a nonpartisan commission brings near-identical procedures to Newfoundland and to Vancouver. As one comparative elections expert once told me, “If you can navigate a polling place in Montreal, you’ll have no trouble in Calgary.” There’s consistency, but also — critics argue — vulnerability.

You hear the argument: uniform rules could shut the door on chaos and confer trust. Yet moving all the levers into one set of hands, especially if those hands sit in the Oval Office, unsettles many Americans — including some who once favored federal oversight. Recent years — and heated challenges to certified results — have exposed the risks: what if a president, regardless of party, decided the rules should fit his political fortunes, not public will? One legal scholar, in a moment of candid reevaluation, recently remarked that diffusing control across states now appears less “messy,” more a vital safeguard: a deliberate tangle that can help prevent election sabotage from above.

And yet, Trump returns again and again to the idea that the system’s frailties stem from “crooked” states — and darkly suggests that noncitizens are casting ballots. “It’s amazing the Republicans aren’t tougher on it,” Trump said, though it’s noteworthy that even Republican-run states like Georgia have, after exhaustive review, turned up minimal evidence of widespread fraud.

Of course, not everyone takes Trump at his word. Critics see an opportunity — or perhaps a warning — in his proposal. The phrase “take over” rings, to some, as less about solving logistical issues and more about targeting Democratic-leaning states and controlling the gates of democracy. There are those watching the Supreme Court for signals, as its embrace of the “unitary executive” theory might, for the first time, put federal bureaucrats in near-direct line to the president. If that domino falls, many worry it could put elections — the ultimate referee of American self-government — in the grasp of a single figure.

Meanwhile, the wider fight over voting rights rolls on. Advocates for stronger federal involvement say federal standards are essential to safeguard against discrimination and arbitrary rules. Opponents, often wary of federal reach, argue that local variation — as disorderly as it sometimes appears — has a protective logic. It is harder to bend a nation’s outcome when each state, and often each county, pulls the levers in slightly different ways.

To step back, the current patchwork generates no shortage of headaches for voters and administrators. It can frustrate, confuse, and occasionally disenfranchise. Yet, as the events of recent years have underscored, dispersal of authority might be all that stands between fair elections and their outright manipulation.

Navigating America’s tangled voting system won’t be solved with sound bites or sweeping promises. Whether power should drift further to Washington or stay anchored to the fifty states remains, for now, an answer best left unsettled — perhaps as a deliberate shield against those most eager to seize control.

Donald Trump has thrown another match onto the already smoldering debate about who, ultimately, should run American elections. During a conversation with Dan Bongino, a podcast host (and notably, a former FBI official turned prominent right-wing figure), Trump made no effort to soften his belief: Republicans, he insisted, need to "take over the voting in at least 15 places." To make it crystal clear, he went further, urging the party to "nationalize the voting."While these remarks come as no surprise given Trump’s persistent (and unsubstantiated) claims that the 2020 election was stolen, they stir up an old and thorny question that has never fully left the American conscience: Should elections be managed close to home, or should there be a single rulebook for the whole country?For most of American history, the answer has landed closer to local control. The Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 4, gives state legislatures the first crack at these decisions — from the time polls open to how voter rolls are maintained. Congress can intervene, but rarely does, and has mostly left trenches like voting machines and ballot designs to the states, and quite often down to the counties.This isn’t just a quirk of tradition. Local quirks abound — anyone who has stood in line in urban Atlanta or rural Nebraska can vouch that the voting experience depends a good deal on your ZIP code. There’s no federal agency managing the show, unlike Canada — where a nonpartisan commission brings near-identical procedures to Newfoundland and to Vancouver. As one comparative elections expert once told me, “If you can navigate a polling place in Montreal, you’ll have no trouble in Calgary.” There’s consistency, but also — critics argue — vulnerability.You hear the argument: uniform rules could shut the door on chaos and confer trust. Yet moving all the levers into one set of hands, especially if those hands sit in the Oval Office, unsettles many Americans — including some who once favored federal oversight. Recent years — and heated challenges to certified results — have exposed the risks: what if a president, regardless of party, decided the rules should fit his political fortunes, not public will? One legal scholar, in a moment of candid reevaluation, recently remarked that diffusing control across states now appears less “messy,” more a vital safeguard: a deliberate tangle that can help prevent election sabotage from above.And yet, Trump returns again and again to the idea that the system’s frailties stem from “crooked” states — and darkly suggests that noncitizens are casting ballots. “It’s amazing the Republicans aren’t tougher on it,” Trump said, though it’s noteworthy that even Republican-run states like Georgia have, after exhaustive review, turned up minimal evidence of widespread fraud.Of course, not everyone takes Trump at his word. Critics see an opportunity — or perhaps a warning — in his proposal. The phrase “take over” rings, to some, as less about solving logistical issues and more about targeting Democratic-leaning states and controlling the gates of democracy. There are those watching the Supreme Court for signals, as its embrace of the “unitary executive” theory might, for the first time, put federal bureaucrats in near-direct line to the president. If that domino falls, many worry it could put elections — the ultimate referee of American self-government — in the grasp of a single figure.Meanwhile, the wider fight over voting rights rolls on. Advocates for stronger federal involvement say federal standards are essential to safeguard against discrimination and arbitrary rules. Opponents, often wary of federal reach, argue that local variation — as disorderly as it sometimes appears — has a protective logic. It is harder to bend a nation’s outcome when each state, and often each county, pulls the levers in slightly different ways.To step back, the current patchwork generates no shortage of headaches for voters and administrators. It can frustrate, confuse, and occasionally disenfranchise. Yet, as the events of recent years have underscored, dispersal of authority might be all that stands between fair elections and their outright manipulation.Navigating America’s tangled voting system won’t be solved with sound bites or sweeping promises. Whether power should drift further to Washington or stay anchored to the fifty states remains, for now, an answer best left unsettled — perhaps as a deliberate shield against those most eager to seize control.