“It’s harder to hack 50 election systems than it is to hack one. So it, in my view, at least, that’s always a system that’s worked pretty well… I’m not in favor of federalizing elections — I mean, I think that’s a constitutional issue.”
Governors, senators, election officials, and constitutional conservatives are speaking out against calls to federalize America’s elections.
Across the country, conservative and libertarian leaders are pushing back on proposals to “nationalize” elections. The U.S. Constitution places the administration of elections primarily in the hands of the states — a structure designed by the Founders to protect federalism, accountability, and public trust. View the growing list of leaders and submit your own statement in support of the Constitution.
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1
RightCount Signatory Statement — February 2026
“The Constitution is clear: elections in the United States are administered by the states, not the federal government, and no president has the authority to nationalize them. The 2026 election will be competitive, but that reality cannot justify threats or falsehoods that erode public trust, increase the risk of violence, or undermine the rule of law. We have full confidence in our state election systems and the dedicated and professional administrators who work every day to ensure that our elections are safe, secure and accurate.”
Signatories
Congressional leaders, governors, senators, and state officials united in defense of state-administered elections.
“It’s harder to hack 50 election systems than it is to hack one. So it, in my view, at least, that’s always a system that’s worked pretty well… I’m not in favor of federalizing elections — I mean, I think that’s a constitutional issue.”
“It’s always been the responsibility of the states to administer elections, and it’s a system that works well, so long as the states make it a priority to ensure the integrity of our elections.”
“We have a state-based elections system. It is going to remain that way.”
“Election reform is a national imperative, but under our Constitution, election reform must be undertaken at the state level. Our Founders limited Congress’ role in conducting our elections for good reason: They wanted elections to be administered closest to the people, free from undue influence of the national government.”
“First of all, I do not want to see us nationalizing elections. I do believe it’s fitting and proper to set some basic standards for federal elections, like only citizens can vote… voter ID. This is unbelievably popular … so that ought to be a basic national standard.”
“Actually, it has its roots with Stephen Miller. He’s probably focused too much on his Duke education, and should go back to third grade math. My granddaughter can figure out we don’t have the votes to get that done.”
“That’s not what the Constitution says about elections… As far as the time, place and manner of elections, that, under the Constitution, is a state activity. So, I’m not for nationalizing it.”
Sen. Capito argued that dispersing control of elections is a “protective device” which helps prevent cyberattacks. “He thinks that’s safer. I, personally, don’t.”
“I don’t see how that’s consistent with the Constitution.”
“My understanding of the United States Constitution is that elections for state positions are to be conducted by states, and I don’t think we should deviate from that.”
“I think we do a good job here in the state. Plus, it’s constitutionally a state issue.”
“Our Constitution is pretty clear. Our elections are conducted by each state. In Ohio, we conduct elections very well. We have a system that just works exceedingly well.”
“I think he should remember who created the federal government, and that was the states.”
“I opposed nationalizing elections when Speaker Pelosi wanted major changes to elections in all 50 states. I’ll oppose this now as well. I work with the NE Gov & Unicameral to ensure we have secure elections where every citizen’s vote counts. This is what the Constitution calls for.”
“I fully support states’ rights on elections, and I think that’s where it belongs. We’re pretty strong states’ rights advocates there.”
Local leaders around the world “envied the United States,” where for more than two centuries the “Constitution [has delegated] states to administer elections.”
“Republicans should not, in fact, ‘nationalize the voting.’ If you were worried about election integrity before, this would make things infinitely worse. Decentralized elections are one of the greatest protections against large-scale fraud and abuse.”
“Our elections are decentralized by design with the U.S. Constitution expressly delegating this authority to states, allowing local jurisdictions to operate in a manner that best meets the unique needs of their voters… Creating a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to elections determined and controlled by the federal government is short-sighted and more susceptible for fraud and abuse.”
“Centralizing election power may sound appealing to some, but it is fundamentally at odds with the foundational governing norms that make America great… As a lawyer, I know the Constitution is clear. Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution assigns the administration of elections to the states… ‘Nationalized’ elections are unconstitutional, plain and simple.”
“Nevada’s elections should be handled in Nevada, by Nevadans.”
“The constitution’s pretty clear that the manner of the elections is left up to the states, and not to the federal government. The president would like to have it differently, but I don’t think he can have it differently.”
“The state of Ohio should be in charge of the state of Ohio’s elections… I don’t think that the states, in any way, should give up their elections. For one thing, is the federal government going to come in and run a township trustee election? Are they going to come in and decide who’s running for school board, or fiscal officer, or the thousands and thousands of other elections?”
“We’ve shown the world how well we can run our elections… We got this, we don’t really need the help of some bureaucracy in Washington.”
“I personally don’t believe we should nationalize elections.”
“The Federal Government cannot usurp New Hampshire’s express constitutional authority to run elections and cannot compel New Hampshire to violate state and federal election statutes, including those that protect the privacy of voter information.”
Join thousands of conservatives and libertarians who believe the Founders got it right: election integrity starts at home, not in Washington. State-run elections mean local accountability to you.
Sign up to stay informed on our work to defend the constitutional framework that keeps elections transparent, accessible, and free from federal overreach.