Federal Power Over Elections Tests Constitutional State Authority

Why It Matters

American elections are built on a clear foundation: states run elections, and the federal government plays a supporting role. A new Congressional Research Service report maps out how that foundation is being tested through executive orders, Department of Justice data demands, and a sweeping FBI seizure of ballots from a major American county. When the federal government demands sensitive voter data from states, seizes physical ballots from certified elections, and threatens to withhold federal funds from non-cooperating jurisdictions, it raises questions that go beyond any single administration's policy preferences.

The Big Picture

Under the Constitution, states hold primary responsibility for administering elections. The Elections Clause of Article I gives states the authority to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Congress. The Voter Qualifications Clause gives states the power to determine who is eligible to vote in federal congressional elections. States also appoint presidential electors under Article II. Congress has override authority over state election regulations, but does not hold general regulatory authority over state and local elections.

Three federal statutes sit at the center of the current disputes. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires states to maintain accurate voter rolls and make certain records available for public inspection, with the Attorney General authorized to bring civil enforcement actions. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requires states to maintain a centralized, uniform statewide voter registration list and similarly authorizes AG civil enforcement. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 requires election officers to retain voting records for 22 months and to provide them to the Attorney General upon written demand.

The Trump Administration has leaned on all three statutes to justify its actions, with mixed results in court.

In March 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14248, directing the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the DOGE administrator, to review federal immigration databases alongside state voter registration lists. The order authorized subpoenas and directed the Attorney General to consider withholding federal grants from states that refuse to cooperate. Multiple federal courts have enjoined portions of the order, though two key sections, including the grant-withholding provision, remain outside those injunctions. One federal district court ruled that in implementing the order, the administration must comply with the Privacy Act's requirement that agencies provide at least 30 days' notice before any new use of records stored in an agency's system.

A second executive order followed in March 2026. Executive Order 14399 directed federal officials to compile "State Citizenship Lists" for upcoming federal elections and to prioritize prosecutions of state and local officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters. Two dozen states have filed legal challenges, arguing the order would unconstitutionally usurp authority over elections that belongs to states and Congress.

The DOJ, citing the 2025 executive order alongside the NVRA, HAVA, and the Civil Rights Act, has requested voter information from most states, the District of Columbia, and some local governments. The demands included detailed personal data, including full name, date of birth, residential address, and either a state driver's license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. Several federal district courts have dismissed DOJ's suits seeking that data, finding that the federal statutes cited do not compel the specific disclosures demanded. DOJ has appealed those decisions, and cases in other states remain pending. Some states have reached voluntary agreements to share voter lists, and those agreements have drawn challenges from civil rights groups.

On January 28, the FBI executed a voting records seizure in Fulton County, Georgia, taking more than 600 boxes containing 2020 election ballots from over 500,000 voters. The search warrant alleged violations of federal recordkeeping and election interference statutes. Fulton County officials filed a motion for the return of the seized records, arguing the search lacked probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, finding that plaintiffs had not met the required standard under circuit case law, and that the seizure did not interfere with the ability to conduct past or future elections.

In Arizona, officials reported complying with a subpoena seeking 2020 Maricopa County election records. In April, DOJ demanded all 2024 election ballots from Wayne County, Michigan, including absentee and provisional ballots. Wayne County responded that it does not have custody of the records.

Political Stakes

For the Administration

The legal record so far is mixed at best. Several district courts have rejected DOJ's voter data demands, finding the statutory basis insufficient. The 24-state coalition challenging the March 2026 executive order represents a significant legal exposure. And the Fulton County ballot seizure, while surviving an initial court challenge, remains legally and politically contested. The grant-withholding provision of the 2025 executive order has not yet been enjoined, giving the administration a potential pressure lever, but that tool carries its own legal risks under the Spending Clause, which defines Congress's power to tax and spend for the "general welfare."

For Republicans

The House passed H.R. 22, the SAVE America Act, on April 10, 2025, which would amend the NVRA to establish additional state voter list maintenance requirements. That vote signals alignment with the administration's election integrity framing. But the CRS report also notes that Congress could move in the opposite direction, restricting the circumstances under which the executive branch can obtain and consolidate voter information. Republican-led states that value their own authority over elections may find themselves in tension with a federal administration asserting broad investigative powers.

For Democrats

The court victories on voter data demands, the Privacy Act ruling, and the multistate coalition against the 2026 executive order all represent active fronts for engagement. The challenge for Democrats is translating courtroom wins into durable statutory protections, which requires legislative action they do not currently have the votes to pass.

For the Public

The data demands involve Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers for millions of registered voters. The Fulton County seizure involved the physical ballots of more than half a million people from a single county in a single election. The CRS report notes that Congress may consider creating new requirements for securing election records and limiting the appropriate use of such data, a signal that existing protections may not be adequate for the scale of what is now occurring.

The Bottom Line

Two things stand out. First, the statutory tools the Administration is relying on, the NVRA, HAVA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, were not written with this kind of sweeping federal data collection in mind, and courts are reading them accordingly. Second, Congress has the authority to resolve the ambiguity in either direction, by expanding federal investigative authority, constraining it, or setting clearer rules for how sensitive voter data can be collected, stored, and used. So far, Congress has not acted comprehensively on any of those options.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.