NATIONWIDE — The authority to regulate federal elections rests with Congress under the U.S. Constitution, raising serious constitutional concerns after reports that President Donald Trump has considered eliminating mail ballots for the upcoming 2026 midterm elections through an executive order.
In recent times, President Donald Trump has allegedly contemplated the removal of mail ballots for the upcoming election. Through an executive order, Trump would make these changes for the 2026 midterm elections, as reported by The Washington Post and Cato At Liberty (CAL).
The alleged justification for the executive order is “national security.” A proponent of the order claims that “there are foreign interests that are interfering in our election processes,” which “causes a national emergency where the president has to be able to deal with it,” CAL reported.
Though the president’s authority to “act unilaterally without congressional authorization is murky or disputable,” CAL argues that “in the realm of election administration, there is no ambiguity. The Constitution explicitly assigns to ‘the Congress’ the power to ‘make or alter’ election regulations ‘by Law’ (i.e., by statute). That explicit textual command leaves no room for any claim that the president has inherent authority to alter election law by executive order.”
The framers of the Constitution, who had lived under British tyranny, understood the danger of allowing one branch to hold too much power. For this reason, the government was divided into three branches: the executive (the president), the legislative (Congress), and the judicial (the Supreme Court).
As CAL mentions, the writers of the Constitution recognized both the authority and the risks involved in controlling election rules. In any democratic system, those who hold power may be tempted to alter voting procedures in ways that disadvantage or even prevent their opponents from casting ballots.
To guard against this possibility, the framers assigned Congress as the final authority to oversee and correct potentially unfair election administration.
Congress’s power is explained in The Federalist Nos. 59, 60 and 61, written by Alexander Hamilton, who outlined the need for Congress to retain authority over elections. Hamilton described why the default rule allows each state legislature to determine the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” within that state.
“The Framers believed that, in most areas of governance, governments closer to the people are better equipped to make decisions for their constituents. For example, a state government is more likely to know which polling locations are most convenient to serve its population,” CAL noted.
Furthermore, unlike most policy matters, authority over federal elections directly affects the structure and stability of the federal government itself. At a time when it was unclear whether states would fully support the newly formed national government, the framers worried that some states might refuse to participate in federal elections, thereby jeopardizing the existence of the House and Senate.
In Federalist No. 59, Hamilton warned that the Union could be endangered if leaders from several key states conspired to block elections altogether. Because of these fears, the framers ultimately granted Congress the authority to override state laws governing federal elections (CAL).
As explained in Federalist No. 60, Hamilton argued that Congress’s diversity would prevent it from abusing its power over elections. Some critics worried that the federal government could manipulate election rules to favor certain groups by limiting where people could vote and making it harder for others to participate.
But Hamilton responded that because representatives come from different regions, backgrounds and economic classes, they would have a wide range of interests and viewpoints. With members representing rural and urban areas, wealthy and poorer citizens and different parts of the country, Congress would be unlikely to pass laws that unfairly help one group while hurting another (CAL).
If the president could change federal election law without being checked by the other branches, it would concentrate too much power in the executive. Such authority would centralize power in a single individual rather than in a diverse legislative body like Congress.
While the president is elected by the people, altering election procedures unilaterally could create opportunities for manipulation that benefit the officeholder or allies. For this reason, the argument concludes that “any legal claim of inherent presidential authority to regulate elections during a supposed ‘national security emergency’ must be vigorously opposed” (CAL).
Many courts have already started to strike down this executive order. D.C. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly stated that “our Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures.”
The authority to regulate federal elections is reserved for Congress, as the Constitution explicitly grants that power to the legislative branch. Allowing President Trump to implement such an executive order would disrupt the balance of power and weaken the constitutional structure, regardless of whether the national security justification is ultimately upheld.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
