Politics
Contributor: Federal power grabs on elections are not about fraud
Fans of the musical “Hamilton” know three things about the nation’s first Treasury secretary because of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s brilliance. First, that Alexander Hamilton cheated on his wife, Eliza. Second, he was killed by the vice president, Aaron Burr. Third, and most importantly, he was considered a highly principled man. And when it came to the topic of nationalizing elections, do you know how this Revolutionary War vet and founding father characterized doing so?
A threat.
Referring to corruptible public officials, Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: No 59: “With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people to discontinue the choice.”
Hamilton’s prescient views became the framework for the Election Clause in the Constitution. And since returning to the White House, President Trump has been searching for ways to usurp it. Last month he made calls to nationalize elections. This month he’s at it again.
He’s also pushing Congress to pass his so-called SAVE Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. It sounds innocuous until you realize a driver’s license isn’t good enough; a passport would often be required. But half the country doesn’t have a passport, and it costs roughly $200 and a few weeks to get one. The logistical burden is unreasonable and cruel: Consider that this year, during primary season, we’ve already witnessed natural disaster — such as the tornadoes that recently ripped through the Midwest or the fires in Texas — upend entire communities. Many people would not have been able to vote, simply because they had been separated from their papers during the disaster.
The financial obstacles that would be created by the SAVE Act are at least as onerous: Why would Congress choose to financially burden voters — with what is essentially an unlawful poll tax — at a time when the unemployment rate and gas prices are up and the approval rating for nearly everyone in office is down? There are a couple of reasons. One is that the party controlling Congress hopes to suppress voting in order to defy the will of the American majority and cling to power.
Another reason lawmakers support this terrible bill is simply that Trump wants it. Some Republicans in office are so afraid of angering a vengeful president that they would rather entertain his authoritarian tendencies than go through the fire of his opposition during a primary.
For politicians such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who this week changed his long-held position on the filibuster in order to push the SAVE Act, it’s simply about political survival. He needs the president’s endorsement heading into the runoff for his Senate seat.
Trump has called the election overhaul bill his top priority — not the war he started with Iran, not returning the billions collected from illegal tariffs, not justice for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. Before there was a Constitution, there was a warning, written by Hamilton and other founders, whose concerns about nationalized elections are well documented and have proved to be well founded.
You would think a nation in the midst of beating its proverbial chest about our 250th birthday would take more heed from the country’s founders. But nope: This week Florida state lawmakers, in an attempt to appease their state’s most powerful resident, passed an election overhaul law that mirrors the federal SAVE Act. More red states are likely to follow, not because a national wave of voter fraud has been unearthed by authorities, but because the authorities want to stay in the good graces of someone who has yet to prove any widespread fraud other than his own.
The party that famously railed against “the bridge to nowhere” is now offering bills that solve nonexistent problems. Or in some cases, creating problems, particularly for women who changed their names after marriage so their state IDs don’t match their birth certificates.
Cornyn is not alone in exchanging his principles for Trump’s favor; he’s just the most recent. However, the manner in which he announced his flip flop was particularly tone deaf.
“If a man takes a swing at you and barely misses, that doesn’t make him a pacifist — it just means he has bad aim,” Cornyn wrote in an op-ed about the bill for the New York Post, the newspaper founded by Hamilton in 1801. “Standing still and giving him a second free swing wouldn’t be wise or honorable: it would be foolish.”
In 2016, then-candidate Trump took his first big swing at our elections when he implied — without evidence — that his opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, had rigged the election after losing to him in the Iowa Republican caucus. Reportedly Trump even tried to get the state’s party chair to overturn the result. He’s been throwing jabs at our elections ever since. The Jan. 6 riot was a haymaker that barely missed. Given the president’s propensity to hand out Trump 2028 hats, it seems passing the SAVE Act would be, in Cornyn’s words, setting voters up to stand there while Trump takes another swing at our democracy.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 59, warned that exclusive state power over federal elections posed an existential threat to the Union, cautioning that “a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States” could “accomplish the destruction of the Union” through control of election regulations[1]
-
The SAVE Act requiring proof of citizenship to vote imposes unreasonable logistical and financial burdens on voters, effectively functioning as a poll tax by requiring passports costing approximately $200 that roughly half the country does not possess[1]
-
Natural disasters and unforeseen circumstances already disrupt voting access, and citizenship verification requirements would further prevent Americans from voting by separating them from necessary documentation during emergencies such as tornadoes or fires[1]
-
The stated rationale for election overhaul legislation—addressing voter fraud—is not supported by evidence, as authorities have failed to unearth a national wave of voter fraud despite repeated claims[1]
-
Republicans supporting the SAVE Act are motivated by partisan interests rather than election security concerns, with some lawmakers abandoning long-held principles to secure Trump’s political endorsement during primary races[1]
-
Election nationalization efforts represent an authoritarian threat to democracy that the nation’s founders specifically warned against, making it imperative to heed historical lessons about centralized electoral control[1]
Different views on the topic
-
Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers that the national government required ultimate authority over election regulations to prevent state legislatures from abandoning their responsibility to choose federal representatives, which could render “the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy”[4]
-
The Constitution’s design allocates election regulation authority primarily to states with a federal backstop, recognizing that the national government must possess a check on state power to maintain union stability and prevent states from exploiting their regulatory control[3][4]
-
Federalist No. 60 establishes that the system of separated powers—with the House elected directly by people, the Senate by state legislatures, and the president by electors—creates structural safeguards preventing any single faction from monopolizing electoral control[2]
-
Voter identification requirements serve legitimate election integrity purposes, with proponents arguing that citizenship verification represents a reasonable measure to ensure eligible voter participation[1]
The Defense Department’s nearly $1.45 trillion budget request — the largest ever for the Pentagon — was ostensibly the reason for the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. But anyone who hoped for details on how that money might be used would have been left wanting.
For three hours, senators questioned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Pentagon’s comptroller, Jay Hurst. But for the most part, the session focused on the U.S. war against Iran and Mr. Hegseth’s tenure.
Here are the main takeaways.
Hegseth said Democrats were the enemy.
At the hearing’s outset, Mr. Hegseth condemned members of Congress who have questioned or challenged the Iran war, just as he did a day earlier during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
“I’ll say it again today, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless naysayers and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans,” he said.
Democrats asked about civilian deaths in the war.
Democratic senators questioned Mr. Hegseth on his gutting of the office that works to reduce harm to civilians in combat, which the Pentagon created in 2022 in response to New York Times reporting about noncombatants killed during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The defense secretary dismissed their concerns, and did not answer a question from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, about why he cut about 90 percent of the employees from the civilian protection office.
Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, asked about the Pentagon’s investigation into U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles that hit a girl’s elementary school, killing 168 people on the first day of the war. Mr. Hegseth would only say that the attack remained under investigation.
Two Republican senators, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, asked Mr. Hegseth and General Caine if U.S. forces ever deliberately targeted civilians in conflict. Both men said no.
Hegseth and Caine did not respond directly to questions about women in combat.
Senator Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, asked General Caine three times for his opinion on whether having women in combat units lowered standards if they meet the same physical fitness standards of men, and each time the general avoided answering directly.
General Caine said that “standards” were set by “civilian leaders” and offered a tepid declaration that women “continue to perform well across a range of” military specialties and assignments, but did not make a clear statement of support for their continued assignment to combat units.
Mr. Hegseth said that “the highest male standard for every combat arms position” should be the standard for whether women are allowed to serve in those roles.
Christian nationalism and race were also tense issues.
Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, asked Mr. Hegseth about his removal of women and Black men from senior leadership positions.
The senator said that Mr. Hegseth had “an intense interest in Christianity, in nationalism, and in not recognizing the talents of women and nonwhite men.”
“And that’s the wrong direction,” he added.
Mr. Hegseth appeared to be incensed.
“I don’t know what you’re insinuating, senator, but I am not ashamed of my faith in Jesus Christ,” he replied, calling Mr. Reed’s comments a “smear” on his character.
Mr. Reed pressed forward, asking about the secretary’s monthly Christian prayer services in the Pentagon auditorium and his tendency to give a Christian rationale for war.
“I’m sorry, Mr. Secretary,” the senator said. “Stressing the need for more Christianity in the military forces doesn’t seem like a neutral position in which you tolerate and accept all religions.”
Hegseth was accused of using antisemitic language.
Senator Jacky Rosen, Democrat of Nevada, accused Mr. Hegseth of using antisemitic language when he compared members of Congress and the news media to the Pharisees who criticized Jesus of Nazareth for performing miracles.
“It’s a problematic and weaponized term that casts Jewish communities as hypocritical or morally corrupt,” Ms. Rosen said of the defense secretary’s use of the term Pharisee.
“Words matter — what you say, how we choose to say it,” she said. “How do you justify using this language as secretary of defense?”
“I feel like it’s a pretty accurate term for folks who don’t see the plank in their own eye and always want to see what’s wrong with an operation,” the defense secretary said. “As opposed to the historic success of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapons.”
“So I stand by it,” he added.
Democrats focused on the war’s harm to the U.S. economy.
Democrats repeatedly steered the discussion to the economic impact of the Iran war on Americans, specifically the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows.
“We can try and tell the American people that it’s going great and we’re killing it,” said Senator Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, “but until the Strait of Hormuz is open, I don’t think we can credibly say that with any seriousness.”
There was a rare moment of agreement across party lines.
Senator Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan, asked Mr. Hegseth when the war with Iran would end. The senator noted that the United States could continue to have tactical successes while still not creating the political conditions for the two countries to negotiate its end.
Mr. Peters asserted that the United States would not be able to end the war until it took control of the Strait of Hormuz.
That spurred perhaps the lone point of agreement between members of the Democratic caucus and a senior Republican on the committee.
Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he welcomed the question from Mr. Peters.
“Let me observe that I very much appreciate the senator from Michigan suggesting ways in which our efforts in Iran could be more successful,” he said. “I do appreciate that.”
Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper, Robert Jimison, Greg Jaffe and Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A Wyoming city councilman is facing backlash after posting a comment suggesting the state should “hang bad judges” in response to a court ruling on abortion, later insisting the remark was “not a threat.”
State Rep. Mike Yin, a Democrat, shared a post from Wyoming Public Radio & Media on Facebook regarding a Natrona County judge temporarily blocking the state’s six-week abortion ban, allowing abortions to resume while the law faces ongoing legal challenges.
“The legislature should obey the Constitution and the freedom to make your own healthcare choices. Instead we keep making it harder to keep doctors in Wyoming and kids in this state,” Yin wrote in the post. “The only way that changes is at the ballot box.”
Troy Bray, a city councilman in Powell, Wyoming, commented on the post about a judge blocking the state’s so-called “heartbeat” abortion law.
MAINE REP. LAUREL LIBBY’S LAWSUIT OVER CENSURE FOR TRANS ATHLETE POST GOES TO FEDERAL COURT
“In order for Wyoming to find justice, we will have to hang bad judges,” Bray wrote.
The comment quickly drew criticism from other users, some of whom described the remark as dangerous and inappropriate given the role of elected officials.
Bray later addressed the backlash in a lengthy Facebook post, saying his comment was “a statement of my beliefs, NOT a threat,” and not intended as a call for others to act.
MORNING GLORY: MANY FEDERAL JUDGES ARE OVERSTEPPING THEIR POWER, BUT ‘IMPEACHMENT!’ IS NOT THE ANSWER
Wyoming Republican Gov. Mark Gordon signed the fetal heartbeat abortion restriction in March, but he acknowledged the likelihood of legal challenges to come from it. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images)
“That is a statement of my beliefs, NOT a threat, as some have characterized it, nor is it a call for others to act,” Bray wrote.
Bray added that he is working to address what he sees as systemic issues “by any means necessary,” a phrase that has drawn additional scrutiny, though he said he intends to pursue peaceful solutions.
“I will exhaust every peaceful means I can find,” he wrote.
JUDGES BACKING OUT OF RETIREMENT AHEAD OF TRUMP TERM LEAVE GOP SENATORS FUMING
Anti-abortion rights demonstrators march to the Supreme Court for the 52nd annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 24, 2025. (Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)
He also argued that Wyoming’s judicial system is “broken” and accused judges of overstepping their authority, writing that courts are often the “last place you will ever find justice.”
Bray expanded on that point in his follow-up post, arguing the legal system is often inaccessible to ordinary people.
“Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits intended to use the system as a punishment, financially draining their adversaries with a process that is formatted to require a specialist lawyer just to participate,” he wrote. “Show up without a lawyer, and you aren’t even allowed to present an argument. Justice is denied to anybody who doesn’t pay for it.”
SCOOP: HOUSE REPUBLICANS REVIVE PUSH TO IMPEACH ‘ACTIVIST’ JUDGES AFTER JOHNSON’S GREEN LIGHT
He also pointed to historical and international examples of public unrest, arguing that people will “fight” for justice when they believe it is being denied.
The comment came as legal battles over Wyoming’s abortion laws continue to play out in court.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Bray, who serves on the Powell City Council, is one of several local officials who have weighed in publicly on the issue, which has drawn strong reactions from both supporters and opponents of abortion restrictions.
Fox News Digital reached out to Bray for additional comment but did not immediately receive a response.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has enlisted new allies in his legal battle to unravel Nexstar Media Group’s takeover of rival television station group Tegna Inc.
Late Thursday, Bonta announced that five additional states have joined his coalition that is suing to block the $6.2-billion merger. With the additional plaintiffs, the group of top state law enforcement officers has grown to 13 — and the campaign now is a bipartisan effort.
“Antitrust enforcement is not political — it’s about protecting working families and helping ensure the benefits of a vibrant economy are for everyone, not just well-connected corporations,” Bonta said in a statement. “We welcome our sister states into the fray and look forward to fighting alongside them.”
The new states are Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Vermont. They have joined existing the plaintiffs that represent the people of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.
Nexstar owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles.
U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley two weeks ago granted a request by the attorneys general to issue a preliminary injunction halting the merger as the legal case proceeds. The proposed merger — which Nexstar rushed to complete despite opposition from the states — would create the nation’s largest broadcast station group with 265 television stations, up from 164 that Nexstar currently controls.
In dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple major TV network affiliates. That duplication has raised concerns about staff consolidations and widespread newsroom layoffs.
“State attorneys general nationwide understand just how important robust antitrust enforcement is to American life — and what a rotten deal this is for consumers, for workers, for affordability, and for our local news,” Bonta said.
El Segundo-based DirecTV separately filed a lawsuit to block the deal, saying the Nexstar-Tegna consolidation would harm their business by forcing DirecTV to pay significantly higher fees for the rights to carry their stations as part of its programming lineup.
A Nexstar representative was not immediately available for comment.
Nexstar contends the deal would strengthen TV station economics, allowing stations to bolster their news gathering and expand the number of newscasts. But DirecTV countered that in markets where Nexstar owns two stations, it relies on just one newsroom to program both channels.
Nexstar’s proposed purchase of Tegna would give the Irving, Texas-based Nexstar stations in 44 states covering 80% of the U.S. population.
The federal judge ruled there was sufficient merit in the antitrust arguments brought by Bonta and the others to pause Nexstar’s takeover of Tegna until a trial can be held to decide whether the merger is illegal.
“Nexstar must permit Tegna to continue operating as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote in his 52-page order on April 17. “And Nexstar must put measures in place to maintain Tegna as an ongoing, economically viable, and active competitor.”
-
World9 minutes agoLithuania Says It Broke Up Russian Sabotage and Murder Plots
-
News15 minutes agoSchumer and Platner Talk After Mills Suspends Her Campaign
-
Politics21 minutes agoTakeaways From Hegseth’s Second Day of Testimony on the Iran War
-
Business27 minutes agoBehind Powell’s High-Stakes Decision to Stay at the Fed
-
Science33 minutes agoChonkers the ‘Food-Motivated’ Sea Lion Plops Into San Francisco
-
Health39 minutes agoAre Electrolytes for Weight Loss Smart Hydration or an Overhyped Trend?
-
Lifestyle57 minutes agoA Wedding That Included a Mister and ‘The Miz’
-
Education1 hour agoVideo: Can Olive Oil Be Too Flavorful?