This article argues that the Court needs to clarify the distinction between the state and federal government’s roles in federal elections to avoid chaos and unconstitutional overreach. As a part of this clarification, the Court should also clarify how information is deemed “necessary.” This article looks specifically at one potential consideration: public fears regarding election security. Data and logic indicate that such fears should not be a consideration in the necessity determination as they are unreliable. Section II examines the background of the Election Assistance Commission, the applicable law, as well as criticism and support the agency has received since its creation in 2002. This history explains how the EAC came to oversee the Federal Form and why it is an important tool in election administration. Section III explains the Supreme Court’s decision in ITCA. Section IV then looks at the history of the Election and Qualification Clauses to show that any involvement of the EAC in setting voter qualifications would violate the Constitution. Section V evaluates interpretations and analysis of ITCA to show that the Supreme Court needs to clarify the distinction between the federal and state roles in federal elections to protect the state’s constitutional right to set voter qualifications. Finally, Section VI looks at the broader issue of election security and its relation to the adjudication of election issues to show that voters’ concerns about election security should not play a role in the court’s determination of whether to add a particular qualification enforcement method to the Federal Form.
Co-Managers? The Need for Clarification Regarding State and Federal Powers in Federal Elections,
44 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judiciary
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol44/iss1/3