elections

Noah Khalid: Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

The Elections Clause is in the United States Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. The motivation behind the Elections Clause was to establish a balance of power between the federal government and the states in regulating elections for members of Congress. The founding fathers of the Constitution sought to create a system that would ensure fair and consistent elections while preventing abuses and potential corruption.

The Elections Clause is a constitutional ‘provision’ that gives states the primary responsibility to regulate and control elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. States have the power to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of these elections, but Congress can make or alter state regulations. However, Congress has the ultimate authority and can pass federal laws that can override state statutes. This Clause was created to prevent unfair election policies and to make a functioning national government. However, both states and Congress have limitations on their power, like not being able to violate other constitutional provisions or to impose substantial burdens on the right to vote.

The Constitution grants states the power to establish electoral rules, an important factor that can significantly influence election outcomes. By manipulating factors like district boundaries, measures to protect electoral integrity, and vote counting standards, the people in charge of setting election rules can favor one political party over another. The founding fathers of the Constitution initially assigned the state legislatures and eventually Congress with regulating congressional elections, but the modern Supreme Court has expressed doubt in the ability of partisan legislatures to look over the process in a fair way. Thus, the suitability of elected partisan legislatures for making such decisions is debatable compared to supposedly nonpartisan bodies. Historically, Congress has rarely used its power to override state regulations, which allowed election administration to be primarily handled by the states. However, in recent times, Congress has more often imposed requirements on states for federal elections, like the criteria for districting and voter registration standards.

The Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona case is a great example of how congress can step in and override state regulations. Despite this example, Congress generally respects state laws and assumes they will control the practical aspects of federal elections. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Elections Clause gives Congress significant power to regulate federal elections without a conflict with state law. The Court has also highlighted the state’s authority to structure federal elections within the boundaries of their own laws. Although states have individual power, the final authority depends on the Congress, which creates a unique relationship between the states and the federal government in election regulation.

The Elections Clause reflects the Enlightenment principles like popular sovereignty and democratic government by allowing the state legislatures the power to regulate the “Time, Place, and Manner” of congressional elections. This clause also includes the belief that political authority should be received from the consent of the government and that fair electoral processes are vital to ensuring a representative government. I personally don’t think that the elections clause should be amended, however, I think that the congress should step in and take more action. They are granted with a lot of important power but do not seem to use it in effective ways.

Jacob Sorett – Article 1 Section 4 The Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

The Elections Clause was made to solely manage the election of the House and Senate, not the president. According to, Micheal T. Morley and Franita Tolson, it was written to ensure that all states hold elections for Congress and that their procedures for said elections are fair.

 The main purpose of the text is to balance the power of the state and of Congress in voting for representatives. More specifically, the clause is known to establish that each state can set its own conditions in which voting takes place, but that these conditions can be lawfully changed by Congress. 

Even with a common interpretation of the election clause, there are several divergent perspectives about its contents. An example of the above would be how some states more widely distribute power and create “independent redistricting commissions”. This was done in order to prevent the division of voters and keep current members of Congress in their offices. This viewpoint includes the idea of “independent redistricting commissions” being ideal for the Elections Clause for it displays that there is a fairer way to hold elections than what the clause outlines. An example specifically in the court would be Cook v. Gralike. Don Gralike came before the court and argued for the Congressional Term Limit Amendment. It permitted for warnings to be written next to the names of previously elected representatives who opposed Congressional term limits.

However, the supreme court declared that the Elections Clause prevents the state from doing so due to how the amendment is clearly biased towards candidates that support term limits. This serves as a perfect example of different interpretations of the election clause. From the perspective of the court, the Elections Clause should protect members of Congress by preventing the state from going against officials opposing term limits. From the perspective of Don Gralike, the clause allows for the state to still express the manner in which the process is done, and this manner he believes should include warnings next to candidates’ names.

Another case where the Elections Clause was debated was U.S. Term Limits, Inc, v. Thornton. The side of Thorton argued that states should be able to neglect to print the names of candidates who had served in Congress for three terms. Again the supreme court prevented this and declared that the Elections Clause requires all candidates to be displayed on ballots. The supreme court had yet again ruled in favor of Congress and its present officers, once again displaying the court’s interpretation of the clause. 

I find the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the election clause to be more reasonable and persuasive. The Elections Clause’s ultimate goal is to give Congress the power to keep the state in check, preventing unfair and corrupt voting procedures. With more lenient interpretations this is not the case, and this includes arguments such as the one in Cook v. Gralike. States shouldn’t be allowed to make such changes that are clearly in favor of specific candidates, and I think that the view of the supreme court entails this point. If I were to amend this clause, I would allow Congress to alter where the votes are made, as the Elections Clause currently bands this. The state could manage to make change the voting turnout by setting the location of the ballots to specific places. For example, if the state of New York changed all of its ballot locations to extremely far upstate, that would not reflect the vast majority of New York’s votes. This is because most residents don’t live upstate. I think Congress should be able to regulate this to ensure the right amount of voter turnout. 

Noah Khalid: Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

 The Elections Clause is in the United States Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. The motivation behind the Elections Clause was to establish a balance of power between the federal government and the states in regulating elections for members of Congress. The founding fathers of the Constitution sought to create a system that would ensure fair and consistent elections while preventing abuses and potential corruption.

The Elections Clause is a constitutional ‘provision’ that gives states the primary responsibility to regulate and control elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. States have the power to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of these elections, but Congress can make or alter state regulations. However, Congress has the ultimate authority and can pass federal laws that can override state statutes. This Clause was created to prevent unfair election policies and to make a functioning national government. However, both states and Congress have limitations on their power, like not being able to violate other constitutional provisions or to impose substantial burdens on the right to vote.

The Constitution grants states the power to establish electoral rules, an important factor that can significantly influence election outcomes. By manipulating factors like district boundaries, measures to protect electoral integrity, and vote counting standards, the people in charge of setting election rules can favor one political party over another. The founding fathers of the Constitution initially assigned the state legislatures and eventually Congress with regulating congressional elections, but the modern Supreme Court has expressed doubt in the ability of partisan legislatures to look over the process in a fair way. Thus, the suitability of elected partisan legislatures for making such decisions is debatable compared to supposedly nonpartisan bodies. Historically, Congress has rarely used its power to override state regulations, which allowed election administration to be primarily handled by the states. However, in recent times, Congress has more often imposed requirements on states for federal elections, like the criteria for districting and voter registration standards.

The Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona case is a great example of how congress can step in and override state regulations. Despite this example, Congress generally respects state laws and assumes they will control the practical aspects of federal elections. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Elections Clause gives Congress significant power to regulate federal elections without a conflict with state law. The Court has also highlighted the state’s authority to structure federal elections within the boundaries of their own laws. Although states have individual power, the final authority depends on the Congress, which creates a unique relationship between the states and the federal government in election regulation.

The Elections Clause reflects the Enlightenment principles like popular sovereignty and democratic government by allowing the state legislatures the power to regulate the “Time, Place, and Manner” of congressional elections. This clause also includes the belief that political authority should be received from the consent of the government and that fair electoral processes are vital to ensuring a representative government. I personally don’t think that the elections clause should be amended, however, I think that the congress should step in and take more action. They are granted with a lot of important power but do not seem to use it in effective ways.

Article IV: The Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

The Guarantee Clause (Article IV) responds to and prevents oppressive types of governments like monarchies. The Guarantee Clause reflects the framers’ aim to ensure democratic principles in the United States and maintain a representative government in each state. The Guarantee Clause states that every state must have a republican form of government. This ensures that no state inflicts a monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or stratocracy. The clause does not detail the conditions of the republican government (specifically regarding voting requirements), but it does guarantee federal protection to all states from foreign invasions and domestic violence. 

Some scholars interpret this clause as a finite check on the federal government’s interference with the states’ autonomy and, specifically, enabled each state to set appropriate requirements for state and local elections. Others interpret this provision to explain that the federal government can interfere with states’ voting requirements if the conditions disenfranchise part of their population. Scholars argue that post Reconstruction Era, specifically in places where African American’s made up at least 40% of the population, the Guarantee Clause was not upheld, disenfranchising African Americans.    

Texas v. White (1891) provides some context for this interpretation, as the ruling dictated that the newly freed African Americans would become part of the people; thus, they were included in the republic and entitled to vote. Subsequently, Chin utilizes Ratliff v. Beale, which explained how and why Mississippi disenfranchised African Americans.

They declared that the newly enfranchised race (who were greater in numbers) lacked the intelligence and governmental instinct to complete these public services. This acknowledges Mississippi’s “problem” because African Americans comprised most of the population. Furthermore, the elected government personnel would not reflect who the white people desired to hold power in the state. By claiming that Black people did not have sufficient intelligence, the Mississippi Constitutional Convention addressed this problem by creating literacy tests and poll taxes to prevent African Americans from voting.

With these two cases in mind, African Americans, who made up the majority of the population, did not vote; thus, allowing Mississippi and other former Confederate states to run on the minority vote. Finally, in United States v. Mississippi (1965), the United States acknowledges the systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans and, ergo, states running on the minority vote.

The Supreme Court case Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) ruled that Congress could change the age requirement only for federal elections, not state or local ones, as it was beyond Congress’s authority. This ruling supports interpretations regarding states’ autonomy as it prevented the federal government from impeding Oregon’s rights.

Although the 24th Amendment (1964) abolished literacy tests and polling taxes, Chin’s claim extrapolates to current forms of disenfranchisement like gerrymandering. It provokes readers to question if the federal government’s allowance of states’ gerrymandering violates the Guarantee Clause. The Guarantee Clause reflects Lockean ideas of popular sovereignty in that each state runs on a republican form of government where the people have control through elections. Similarly, the provision incorporates Rousseau’s idea of the general will, as the clause guarantees that states govern according to the majority vote.

Elections and Suspension Clause – Alex Berman

Video

Written Component

The Articles of Confederation demonstrated the dangers of giving states too much power, so when drafting the Elections Clause worries arose that if each state had complete control over their own elections, they could compromise Congress’ abilities by opting not to hold an election at all. Thus, the Elections Clause gives states the authority to regulate most aspects of congressional elections, while still offering Congress the power to overwrite any of those regulations. In the Elections Clause, a lack of clarification, such as the meaning of state legislature and what counts as prescribing the “times, places, and manner of holding elections,” has led to varying interpretations of the right of states to regulate elections.

In the supreme court case of Cook V. Gralike, Missouri argued that they could put negative warnings on an election ballot based on if a candidate would support a bill or not. This was ruled unconstitutional because while it is an alteration of the manner of an election, it at the same time is an attempt to regulate the outcome of the election. I agree with this decision because the Elections Clause allows states and congress to regulate the manner of congressional elections, but not their outcomes. For the sake of clarification, the Elections Clause should be amended to define in more detail state legislature and the regulatory actions that states are allowed to take. The Elections Clause demonstrates how the faults seen in the Articles of Confederation were addressed in the Constitution, primarily by granting the federal government power over the states. In article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, the Suspension Clause explains the application and suspension of habeas corpus.

The writ of habeas corpus protects citizens from being arbitrarily arrested by allowing someone who has been arrested to challenge the legal justification of their detention in court. Americans knew that people in England, up until just over a century before the Constitutional Convention, were sometimes imprisoned for life without any trial. Thus, the writ of habeas corpus was of the utmost importance to include in the Constitution. Equally important, however, was Congress’ right to suspend it, illustrated by the fact that habeas corpus was suspended just months before the Constitutional Convention during Shays’ rebellion. The Suspension Clause insures that someone who has been arrested has the right to a trial, unless the arrest is during a rebellion or invasion. A debate about the Suspension Clause, however, regards the process with which habeas corpus can be suspended. In the four instances of suspension, three times the president got permission through Congress, however during the civil war Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on his own, without the expressed consent of Congress.

To me it would make more sense for a president to first need to get permission from congress to prevent the president from having sole authority to make unlimited uncontested arrests. Because of this, I believe that the Suspension Clause should be amended to clarify the process to suspend habeas corpus.