Why Do States Run Federal Elections?

When the delegates met in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation, under which the federal government had little authority. Federalists like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wanted to rectify that with a new Constitution.

Not only did Madison and Hamilton want a stronger central government, but they openly distrusted the states, which tended to act in their own self-interest. Elections were key to the function of the new democracy, but only if they were fair and free of outside influence. The Federalists worried that corrupt state legislatures could undermine Congress by meddling with federal elections.

Hamilton’s biggest fear was that rebellious states could simply refuse to hold federal elections at all, crippling the government. That concern led Hamilton and other Federalists to argue that Congress should have the power to intervene in state-run congressional elections.

“Every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation,” wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 59. “[A]n exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it, by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs.”

After weeks of debate at the Constitutional Convention, the result was the Elections Clause, a single sentence granting states broad authority to conduct federal elections for senators and representatives, while reserving the right of Congress to intervene if necessary.

The Elections Clause, found in Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution reads:

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.

(Senators weren’t elected by popular vote until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Before that, they were chosen by state legislatures.)

The Elections Clause was written specifically for congressional elections, explains Michael Morley, a professor at Florida State University's College of Law.

“The Elections Clause gives states complete power to determine the rules that govern congressional elections,” says Morley. “The Supreme Court has interpreted the clause as giving the states authority to pass a complete code for the conduct of elections. But Congress has authority to step in and either replace rules that it doesn't like or to create rules governing issues that the state has failed to regulate.”

Under the Elections Clause, each state establishes its own laws and procedures that govern congressional elections. Federal elections are overseen at the state level by the governor, the state attorney general and a chief election official—usually the secretary of state—or a bipartisan elections board.

There’s a lot that goes into running elections, so states must come up with their own policies and procedures for things like voter registration, voter ID requirements, training of local election officials, setting standards for voting equipment and certifying vote counts.

Since voting happens at the county and municipal level, thousands of local government entities and election workers register voters, run the polling places, oversee absentee voting and count ballots.

Morley argues it makes sense for states to administer federal elections, since they already have procedures in place for holding state and local elections. Having separate voter registration processes or polling places for federal and state elections could be confusing.

“It's certainly much more efficient for Congress to just leverage these preexisting election codes that states have for every other election, rather than trying to come up with a complete set of rules exclusively for congressional elections,” says Morley.

If states handle every aspect of running federal elections, what’s the responsibility of Congress under the Elections Clause? Historically, Congress has used its authority under the Elections Clause to expand voting rights to more Americans, protect the integrity of the ballot and help ensure that states have the funding needed to run fair and secure elections.

For example, Congress has proposed five different voting-related amendments to the Constitution, which were later ratified by the states:

Congress has also passed landmark legislation like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to combat the suppression of Black voters in Southern states, and laws like the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the “motor voter” bill, which required states to offer voter registration at the DMV.

The Elections Clause was a source of debate during the state ratifying conventions to approve the new Constitution. Staunch antifederalists like Patrick Henry saw it as a prime example of how the central government could unfairly wield its power over the states.

At the Virginia ratifying convention, Henry predicted that the control “given to Congress over the time, place, and manner of holding elections, will totally destroy the end of suffrage.” A North Carolina delegate said it would cause “state legislatures [to] entirely decay away.”

Six states proposed constitutional amendments that would have trimmed or eliminated the Elections Clause altogether. But backers of the provision made convincing arguments that it was a necessary check against corrupting influences on elections.

“[I]n times of popular commotion, and when faction and party spirit run high, [ambitious characters] would introduce such regulations as would render the rights of the people insecure and of little value,” said Massachusetts delegate Theophilus Parsons. “They might make an unequal and partial division of the State into districts for the election of representatives, or they might even disqualify one third of the electors. Without these powers in Congress, the people can have no remedy[.]”

According to the wording of the Elections Clause, states are responsible for the “times, places and manner” of holding federal elections, but those three words leave a lot open to interpretation. How extensive, exactly, is the states’ authority to pass laws governing federal elections?

In Smiley v. Holm (1932), the Supreme Court provided its first detailed interpretation of the Elections Clause. Referring to the “times, places and manner” language, the justices wrote:

“It cannot be doubted that these comprehensive words embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.”

While that ruling gave broad authority to the states, later Supreme Court cases established that Congress had "superseding” power to intervene and alter state election rules. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013), the justices distinguished between Congress’s normal regulatory authority and its sweeping powers under the Elections Clause.

For example, federal law is usually not allowed to preempt state law, especially when it comes to the states' police powers. The Supreme Court calls this the “presumption against preemption.” But in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, the justices ruled that the principle didn’t apply to elections.

“Because of the unique structure of the Elections Clause, the Supreme Court said there is no such presumption against preemption,” says Morley. “When it comes to federal laws that impact congressional elections, the court is much more willing to sweep aside state laws that might be in tension with what Congress wants.”

Ultimately, states may run federal elections, but the Constitution gives Congress comprehensive authority to override state election laws, policies and procedures.