A Pattern of Election Manipulation

A Comparative Analysis of Election Vulnerabilities Codified into Law Across Democrat Controlled States

The 2024 Presidential election has reignited concerns over the integrity of election laws across the United States. With several Democrat-won states maintaining vulnerabilities in their election systems, questions have emerged about how these gaps may have been intentionally left open to influence election outcomes. From unverified mail-in ballots to unmonitored ballot drop boxes, these vulnerabilities allow for potential manipulation that undermines voter confidence and fairness. This paper examines these critical weaknesses, highlighting a pattern across states with Democrat-controlled legislatures that resist reforms to secure elections. By identifying these systemic flaws, this analysis argues for the necessity of congressional intervention to ensure that future elections reflect the true will of the American people.

Political Party Control of State Legislatures

When conducting a comparative analysis between state-controlled legislatures and the 2024 Presidential election outcomes, an almost perfect alignment emerges between Democrat-controlled states and Democrat victories, with only a couple of notable exceptions. This alignment is striking, as it suggests that the legislative bodies in these states have a direct influence over election outcomes, potentially leveraging structural vulnerabilities to favor specific results. When mapping out election laws in Democrat-controlled states, a pattern reveals itself: these states tend to adopt loose election policies, such as minimal voter ID requirements, extensive mail-in voting with few safeguards, and unsupervised ballot drop boxes, which collectively promote vulnerabilities within the voting process.

2024 Presidential Election Outcome

This pattern of permissive policies raises significant concerns. In Democrat-led states, the legislative choices appear intentionally crafted to create gaps in election security that could facilitate election or voter fraud. Unlike states with stricter election protocols, Democrat-controlled legislatures often resist reforms aimed at tightening these laws. Such resistance suggests that these vulnerabilities are not mere oversights but are embedded features of the system that may benefit the party currently in power. By maintaining laws that lack rigorous safeguards, Democrat-controlled states have created an environment where the integrity of the election process can be questioned, undermining trust in the democratic process.

1. Vulnerability Analysis

Election integrity is foundational to the preservation of a free and fair democracy, yet the 2024 Presidential election exposed numerous vulnerabilities in states with election laws that lack robust security measures. These vulnerabilities, which disproportionately exist in Democrat-controlled states, include policies like permitting voting without ID, allowing unsupervised ballot drop boxes, and providing online registration without proof of identity, as well as others. Such policies not only lower the threshold for potential fraud but also erode public trust in the election process, raising legitimate concerns over whether these weaknesses are the result of oversight or are instead deliberately crafted mechanisms that enable manipulation. Each of these vulnerabilities represents a crucial entry point for possible exploitation, allowing votes to be cast without the necessary verification safeguards, or ballots to be submitted and counted outside a supervised process.

In the sections that follow, we will examine these vulnerabilities in detail, breaking down how they are structured, why they present a threat to election security, and how they could be exploited to shift outcomes. By exploring issues such as mail-in voting without strict identity checks, the counting of ballots past election day, and the use of unmonitored drop boxes, we will see how such policies could facilitate, rather than hinder, electoral fraud. This analysis underscores a troubling pattern: that Democrat-controlled states not only embrace these vulnerabilities but actively resist reforms that would close them. As a result, these states create an environment that appears designed to prioritize partisan gain over electoral integrity, potentially skewing election outcomes and challenging the foundation of a fair democratic system.

1.1. Lack of Voter ID Requirements in Democrat-Controlled States

Voter ID requirements are widely regarded as a fundamental measure for ensuring fair and secure elections. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), states with voter ID laws require voters to present some form of identification, typically a government-issued photo ID, to verify their identity at the polls. This measure is essential to prevent issues such as voter impersonation and double voting, which can undermine the integrity of election results (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2024). By enforcing voter ID, states create a uniform standard to safeguard the democratic process, protecting the validity of each vote and preserving public confidence in election outcomes.

In several Democrat-controlled states, however, voter ID requirements are either minimal or entirely absent, including states such as California, Illinois, and New York. Research suggests that the absence of ID laws can lead to vulnerabilities in the election process, making it easier for ineligible individuals to participate unlawfully. For example, a report from the Heritage Foundation highlights instances where, in the absence of voter ID laws, individuals could register and vote in multiple states or impersonate other voters (Heritage Foundation, 2022). In another study, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) documented cases where individuals took advantage of the lack of ID checks to cast illegal votes across state lines, raising concerns about unaddressed security gaps in states without ID requirements (Government Accountability Institute, 2023).

In 2024, Democrat-controlled states that did not require voter ID were notable for their resistance to adopting stricter ID laws, despite ongoing national conversations on election security. For example, Pennsylvania, a Democrat-led state, saw repeated attempts from Republican lawmakers to implement voter ID legislation blocked or vetoed by Democratic officials, citing concerns over "voter suppression" (Pennsylvania General Assembly, 2023). Similarly, Michigan has seen ongoing legislative battles where Democrat officials have opposed new ID mandates, despite Republican lawmakers pushing for tighter election safeguards (Michigan Legislature, 2024). This trend of resistance to voter ID laws in Democrat-led states indicates a potential preference for policies that maintain looser election security measures, which critics argue could allow for a higher degree of manipulation or unauthorized voting.

Given the 2024 outcome, in which Donald Trump emerged victorious despite these vulnerabilities, the persistence of these gaps in Democrat-controlled states has raised renewed concerns over the intent behind blocking stricter voter ID laws. By refusing to implement these measures, Democrat-led states risk undermining the credibility of future elections, potentially enabling practices that erode public trust. The resistance to voter ID requirements, particularly in states where a stricter approach could readily be implemented, signals a need for federal action to ensure uniformity and security in elections across all states.

1.2. States Allowing Illegal Migrants to Obtain Drivers Licenses

Allowing illegal migrants to obtain driver’s licenses is a policy that has grown increasingly common in Democrat-controlled states, where high populations of undocumented immigrants intersect with lenient driver’s license laws. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), as of 2024, 18 states and Washington D.C. permit undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2024). While these licenses may ostensibly be for driving purposes, they can have far-reaching consequences for election integrity when they enable non-citizens to access voter registration systems through automatic DMV registration, a requirement under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993. Critics argue that, rather than merely offering the privilege of driving, these licenses provide a pathway for non-citizens to register unlawfully, thereby compromising voter rolls.

One of the most significant concerns with providing driver’s licenses to illegal migrants is the misuse of these licenses to enable non-citizens to register to vote. As outlined in a report from the Heritage Foundation, the NVRA mandates that state DMVs incorporate voter registration into their processes, making it difficult to verify the citizenship status of those receiving driver’s licenses in states that do not require proof of citizenship (Heritage Foundation, 2022). In Arizona, for example, the Secretary of State’s office was recently sued for failing to release a list of 218,000 registered voters who had not provided proof of citizenship, raising questions about how non-citizens may be influencing elections (America First Legal, 2024). This type of vulnerability is heightened in Democrat-led states where driver’s license laws are particularly lenient, enabling undocumented immigrants to gain access to documents that easily facilitate unverified voter registrations.

Patterns show that these vulnerabilities are concentrated in Democrat-controlled states with large populations of illegal immigrants. States like California, Illinois, and New York, which have some of the highest populations of undocumented immigrants, also maintain some of the most lenient policies regarding driver’s licenses for non-citizens. For instance, California has issued more than one million driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants since 2015 (FAIR, 2023). These high numbers suggest that a substantial population of undocumented individuals is now positioned to access voter registration systems, often with limited checks in place to confirm citizenship.

Evidence of voter rolls contaminated with non-citizens has surfaced in recent years, underscoring the impact of this vulnerability on election integrity. In Virginia, for example, recent Supreme Court rulings allowed the state to remove thousands of non-citizens from its voter rolls after it was discovered they were mistakenly registered through DMV processes (FAIR, 2023). Additionally, Arizona has faced legal battles over the failure to maintain clean voter rolls, with lawsuits revealing that tens of thousands of registrants lacked proof of citizenship (America First Legal, 2024). The implications are far-reaching: contaminated voter rolls not only risk unverified ballots being cast but also undermine public confidence in fair elections, particularly in states with large populations of non-citizens.

The adoption of these lenient policies in Democrat-led states is particularly notable in light of Democrats’ opposition to closing these vulnerabilities. For example, efforts to strengthen voter verification processes in California have been met with resistance from Democrat officials who argue that such measures would "disenfranchise" immigrants (California State Assembly, 2023). Similarly, New York lawmakers have blocked proposed bills requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, citing concerns over "voter suppression" (New York State Legislature, 2024). Critics contend that Democrats have not only resisted these reforms but that these policies appear intentional in light of Democratic immigration policies that promote leniency toward illegal migrants. By simultaneously supporting policies that encourage illegal immigration and maintaining election laws that make it easier for non-citizens to access voter registration, these Democrat-led states create a landscape ripe for election manipulation.

Ultimately, this vulnerability undermines the integrity of U.S. elections, allowing non-citizens to potentially influence the outcomes in ways unintended by election law. Given these risks, the persistence of lenient driver’s license laws in Democrat states suggests an intentional effort to leave this channel open, aligning with broader Democratic policies on immigration. Addressing these issues would require stricter verification processes at the DMV level, a shift that Democrat-controlled states have repeatedly resisted.

1.3. States Allowing Criminals to Vote Before Finishing Their Sentences

In several Democrat-controlled states, policies have emerged that allow convicted felons to vote before they have completed their sentences, raising concerns about election integrity and fairness. Voting rights for felons have traditionally been restricted until individuals have paid their debt to society, serving as a benchmark of accountability. However, in states such as California, New York, and Washington, recent reforms have allowed felons on parole or probation to participate in elections, a measure that some argue prematurely rewards individuals who have not yet fully served their sentences (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2024). By re-enfranchising felons before they complete their sentences, these states effectively create a voting bloc that, in many cases, leans heavily toward the Democratic Party.

The impact of this policy on election fairness is significant, especially in states where felons predominantly support Democrat candidates. Research from the Heritage Foundation suggests that the majority of felons align with the Democratic Party in their voting preferences (Heritage Foundation, 2022). Allowing felons to vote shifts the electoral balance by expanding the voter base with individuals who have yet to complete their societal obligations. This practice reflects a strategy to win votes by creating an electoral advantage that does not reflect the principles of justice and accountability.

Resistance to reforming these policies is particularly evident in Democrat-led states, where attempts to limit early voting for felons are frequently blocked or dismissed as discriminatory. For example, in New York, efforts to prevent felons on parole from voting were halted when Governor Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order in 2018 restoring voting rights to felons on parole (New York State Governor’s Office, 2018). Similarly, in California, proposals to require felons to complete their parole before voting have been met with opposition from Democratic legislators, who argue that such restrictions are punitive and counterproductive to reintegration (California State Legislature, 2024). This resistance reflects a partisan approach to expanding voting rights in ways that critics argue serve political objectives rather than public good.

By allowing felons who have not yet completed their sentences to vote, Democrat-led states effectively reward individuals before they have fully paid for their crimes. This not only undermines the criminal justice system but also raises questions about the legitimacy of the votes cast by those who are still serving their sentences. In light of these factors, the trend of re-enfranchising felons in Democrat-controlled states suggests an electoral strategy that prioritizes political gain over ensuring accountability for individuals who have committed serious offenses.

1.4. States Conducting All-Mail Elections

In several Democrat-controlled states, all-mail voting has become the primary method for conducting elections, raising significant concerns about election security and transparency. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), all-mail elections are now conducted in several states, including California, Oregon, and Washington, where voters receive ballots by mail and are encouraged to return them by mail or through designated drop boxes (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2024). While proponents argue that all-mail voting increases convenience and voter turnout, critics emphasize its susceptibility to fraud, ballot harvesting, and mismanagement within the U.S. mail system, all of which can jeopardize the integrity of election results.

The vulnerabilities of all-mail voting stem from the lack of in-person verification. Unlike voting at a polling place, which requires voters to identify themselves to election officials, mail-in ballots can be submitted without direct oversight, opening the door for ballot harvesting and manipulation. A report by the Heritage Foundation points out that ballot harvesting—where individuals or organizations collect and submit large numbers of absentee ballots—can allow for undue influence, coercion, and the potential for discarding or altering ballots (Heritage Foundation, 2022). Additionally, the U.S. Postal Service has faced widespread challenges in handling large volumes of mail efficiently and securely, creating risks of ballots being lost or delayed. An investigation by PBS found that disruptions in the mail system have led election officials to warn of potential voting issues, especially in states that rely heavily on all-mail elections (PBS, 2023).

High mail-in ballot usage in Democrat-led states has amplified these risks, as seen in California and Colorado, which conduct elections almost exclusively by mail. Data show that Democrat-controlled states have a higher reliance on mail voting compared to states led by Republicans, who generally favor traditional in-person voting (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2024). This reliance on mail ballots has led to documented cases of fraud, including instances of forged signatures and multiple ballots being sent to the same address, creating an environment where unchecked manipulation is possible (Texas Attorney General’s Office, 2023). Critics argue that unrestricted mail voting, without safeguards such as rigorous signature verification or ballot tracking, allows fraudulent practices to go undetected.

Unrestricted mail voting not only lacks the security of in-person voting but also allows for manipulation that would be much harder to achieve at a polling location. Mail ballots are often completed without supervision, raising questions about the integrity of the process. In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton highlighted that the privacy of mail voting and the limited oversight make it particularly susceptible to fraud, suggesting that expanding mail-in voting on a national scale could threaten democracy itself (Paxton, 2023). This warning underscores the potential for unchecked manipulation of mail-in ballots, where fraudulent activity can go undetected due to the lack of direct oversight.

In summary, the reliance on all-mail voting in Democrat-led states introduces vulnerabilities that are difficult to mitigate and prone to exploitation. This trend raises questions about whether all-mail elections truly serve the goal of a secure and fair election process, as they compromise transparency, increase the risk of ballot manipulation, and ultimately erode public trust in election outcomes.

1.5. States Allowing Online Voter Registration Without Proof of Identity

In recent years, the convenience of online voter registration has been widely adopted, especially in Democrat-led states, as a way to increase voter participation. However, when implemented without stringent identity verification measures, online registration systems pose significant risks to election integrity. The absence of identity proof requirements allows individuals to register without reliable verification, opening the door for unauthorized or fictitious registrations that can contaminate voter rolls. According to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), online voter registration systems without adequate security controls are highly susceptible to tampering, fraud, and exploitation by malicious actors (CISA, 2023).

The risks associated with online voter registration are well-documented. A report by the MITRE Corporation highlights that without identity verification protocols, online registration systems can be compromised by false or duplicate registrations (MITRE, 2021). These vulnerabilities can lead to invalid entries on voter rolls and create challenges in detecting and removing ineligible voters. In states that do not require proof of identity, registrations can be manipulated through bot attacks or other automated methods, adding unverifiable digital entries into the system. For example, an analysis by the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) found that voter registration databases in certain states were vulnerable to unauthorized access, manipulation, and data breaches, which could affect the accuracy of voter rolls (Center for Election Innovation & Research, 2022).

States that have implemented online voter registration without robust identity verification, such as California, New York, and Illinois, have experienced notable spikes in voter registrations that have raised questions about the legitimacy of some entries. In California, for instance, voter registration surges prior to major elections have been documented, leading to concerns about the accuracy of the state's voter database. An investigation into the California voter roll found tens of thousands of duplicate registrations, many of which were traced back to the online registration system that lacked adequate identity checks (MITRE, 2021). In Illinois, similar patterns emerged, with voter registration spikes preceding elections, prompting scrutiny from election integrity advocates who raised concerns over unverifiable digital entries (Center for Election Innovation & Research, 2022).

The persistence of these vulnerabilities in states that lack verification safeguards highlights the potential for misuse in online voter registration systems. Democrat-led states that permit registration without identity proof have resisted calls for reform, citing the need for voter accessibility. However, critics argue that prioritizing convenience without necessary security compromises the integrity of elections. Given the documented cases of questionable spikes in registrations, states that allow online voter registration without identity verification may inadvertently—or intentionally—be creating pathways for manipulation, threatening the accuracy of voter rolls and undermining public trust in election outcomes.

1.6. States Allowing Private Financing of Official Elections

The practice of allowing private funding for election administration, particularly from sources with partisan interests, has raised significant concerns about impartiality in the electoral process. Known colloquially as “Zuckerbucks,” this private funding gained widespread attention in 2020 when the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), funded heavily by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to local election offices across the United States. A report by Just the News highlights that, despite controversy over potential partisan influence, private election funding is still permitted in rural areas across 20 states, creating conditions where election administration may be biased based on the source of these funds (Just the News, 2023). Critics argue that the acceptance of private funds, particularly in Democrat-controlled states, can shape election operations and resource allocation in ways that advantage one political party over another, undermining the perception of neutrality in election processes.

Case studies reveal that privately funded elections can favor specific political outcomes. For instance, in Wisconsin during the 2020 election, CTCL grants disproportionately targeted urban areas with higher concentrations of Democrat voters. A report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) found that in some counties, private funds were used to increase voter turnout initiatives and expand absentee voting options, strategies that primarily benefited Democrat-leaning areas (Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, 2021). Similarly, in Pennsylvania, CTCL funding enabled significant infrastructure expansions, such as drop boxes and drive-thru voting locations, that were largely implemented in Democrat-majority areas (Ballotpedia, 2021). These targeted investments created an uneven playing field, where resources influenced by private funding altered the landscape of voter access and, potentially, voter turnout in ways that aligned with partisan interests.

Patterns suggest that Democrat-controlled states are more likely to allow or even embrace private funding for election administration. States such as California, New York, and Illinois have been notably supportive of private election funding, which critics argue reflects a partisan strategy. This trend has sparked a growing movement advocating for public-only funding of elections to ensure neutrality. The issue has even reached the legislative level, with states like Arizona and Georgia passing laws to prohibit or restrict private funding of elections to avoid potential conflicts of interest (Ballotpedia, 2021). However, many Democrat-led states have resisted such reforms, opting instead to retain the flexibility to accept private funds for election-related purposes.

The continued use of private funding in election administration, especially in Democrat-controlled states, underscores the need for federal or state-level legislation that mandates public-only funding. By relying solely on public funds, states can ensure that election resources are allocated equitably across all communities, minimizing perceptions of bias and ensuring a level playing field. The pattern of Democrat states allowing private funding, often from sources aligned with their political interests, highlights the importance of addressing this vulnerability to reinforce public trust in the integrity of elections.

1.7. States Allowing Ballot Return Dates Past the Date of Election

Timely ballot return deadlines are a critical component of election integrity, ensuring that all votes are submitted and counted under consistent standards. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), most states require absentee and mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day to be valid. This approach allows for a more streamlined counting process and ensures that the election results accurately reflect voter intent on the designated day (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2024). However, some Democrat-leaning states have implemented policies allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive days after, sometimes as late as a week or more. While proponents argue that this measure accommodates mail delays, critics warn that extending deadlines can lead to post-election manipulation, impacting the fairness and transparency of results.

Allowing ballots to arrive and be counted after Election Day invites opportunities for post-election manipulation. A study from MIT’s Election Data and Science Lab points out that when deadlines are extended, election officials may face increased pressure, both political and logistical, to selectively handle late-arriving ballots (MIT Election Data and Science Lab, 2022). This delay can fuel suspicions about ballot integrity, particularly in closely contested races where late-counted ballots could swing the outcome. Extending deadlines also opens the door for last-minute ballot harvesting or potential mismanagement, as officials must track, verify, and process ballots after Election Day, increasing the risk of discrepancies and errors.

Examples from recent elections in Democrat-leaning states illustrate how delayed ballot return deadlines can complicate the counting process and raise concerns about selective ballot inclusion. In Pennsylvania, for instance, ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to three days later are still counted, a policy upheld by the state’s Democratic leadership (Ballotpedia, 2024). Similarly, in North Carolina, ballots can be received and counted up to nine days after Election Day, creating delays in finalizing results and opening the door to potential partisan disputes over late-arriving ballots (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2024). These extended deadlines have repeatedly led to accusations of selective ballot inclusion, particularly when delays coincide with swings in vote tallies that affect election outcomes. In both states, Democrat-controlled legislatures have resisted calls for stricter ballot deadlines, arguing instead that the extended deadlines are necessary for accommodating all voters, despite mounting evidence of the vulnerabilities this policy creates.

Ultimately, extending ballot return dates past Election Day in Democrat-leaning states creates conditions ripe for questions over election integrity. Timely ballot returns foster transparency, expedite result reporting, and reduce opportunities for manipulation. However, by allowing extended deadlines, certain states introduce complexities that could be avoided with standardized Election Day return deadlines, preserving the public's confidence in fair and accurate elections.

1.8. States Allowing Unsupervised or Unmonitored Ballot Drop Boxes

The use of unsupervised or unmonitored ballot drop boxes has been increasingly adopted in several Democrat-controlled states, where policies encourage widespread deployment of these boxes without consistent security protocols. Although ballot drop boxes offer a convenient option for voters, their lack of oversight in certain areas introduces significant risks to election integrity. According to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), unmonitored drop boxes are particularly vulnerable to ballot tampering and theft, as they often lack surveillance measures such as cameras or staff, leaving the contents open to unauthorized access (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 2023).

Recent incidents have highlighted the security risks associated with unmonitored drop boxes. In late October 2024, just days before the election, ballot drop boxes in Washington and Oregon were deliberately set on fire, resulting in the destruction of numerous ballots (Firstpost, 2024). Such incidents demonstrate how unsupervised drop boxes can become targets for vandalism or ballot tampering, raising concerns about the security of votes deposited in these locations. Similarly, in a recent scandal in Bridgeport, Connecticut, during the 2023 mayoral primary, an election official was recorded mishandling absentee ballots from drop boxes, ultimately leading to the official’s termination (WFSB, 2023). These cases underscore the vulnerabilities that come with a lack of monitoring, creating situations where ballots can be manipulated or destroyed, undermining public trust in the electoral process.

The absence of a secure chain of custody for ballots placed in unmonitored drop boxes further complicates election security. The Elections Group, an organization that promotes best practices in election administration, underscores the need for a secure chain of custody to protect ballots from tampering and ensure they reach counting centers safely (Elections Group, 2023). However, in many Democrat-led states, there are no standardized protocols to document and verify the movement of ballots from drop boxes to election offices. This lack of accountability damages public confidence, as it leaves gaps in the tracking process that can lead to doubts about whether ballots were handled securely and counted accurately.

States such as California, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where Democrats control key aspects of election policy, have resisted efforts to impose stricter oversight on ballot drop boxes, often emphasizing accessibility concerns. In Wisconsin, for example, a legal challenge was filed against the Wisconsin Elections Commission, arguing that unmonitored drop boxes increase the risk of fraud and reduce voter trust in election outcomes (Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2022). Although state officials argue that enhanced security measures could limit voter access, critics warn that prioritizing convenience over security opens the door to potential manipulation. The ongoing reliance on unmonitored drop boxes in Democrat-led states thus raises questions about the balance between voter accessibility and election security, with many arguing that stronger oversight is needed to safeguard election integrity.

The vulnerabilities associated with unmonitored drop boxes not only risk individual ballots but also erode the public’s trust in the broader election system. Implementing secure, monitored drop boxes with clear chain-of-custody protocols would strengthen public confidence, ensuring that the accessibility of drop boxes does not come at the expense of election security.

2. Congressional Authority Under the Elections Clause

The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate federal elections, a power meant to ensure consistency and fairness across the states. Specifically, Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution states that, “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” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 4). This provision was designed as a safeguard, allowing Congress to intervene when state regulations undermine the integrity or uniformity of federal elections. The Federalist Papers underscore this intent, with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 59 arguing that without a federal check on election procedures, the states might otherwise implement inconsistent and potentially unjust rules that could disrupt the balance of federal power (Hamilton, 1788).

Throughout history, Congress has used its authority under the Elections Clause to bring uniformity and security to federal elections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 are prominent examples where federal oversight was deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Legal precedents have further affirmed Congress’s role in regulating elections, establishing a framework of stare decisis that upholds congressional authority to enact election laws that supersede state regulations when federal interests are at stake (Reynolds v. Sims, 1964). Such precedents confirm that the federal government has the right—and, indeed, the responsibility—to intervene when state-level policies, like those discussed in this paper, pose vulnerabilities to the integrity of federal elections.

Given the current landscape of election vulnerabilities, from lax voter ID requirements to unsupervised drop boxes and loose mail-in ballot deadlines, Congress has a short window to enact comprehensive reforms under a Republican majority. Many Democrat-led states have consistently resisted tightening election security, emphasizing accessibility at the expense of safeguards against potential fraud. However, as John Locke argued in his writings on government, the preservation of a free state depends on a stable and trustworthy system of governance, where authority is used to protect the public good (Locke, 1689). Allowing these vulnerabilities to persist threatens the legitimacy of the democratic process and, by extension, the stability of the nation.

By using its power under the Elections Clause, Congress can enact federal laws to close these vulnerabilities and establish uniform standards for federal elections. A uniform system that includes voter ID requirements, monitored ballot drop boxes, strict mail-in ballot deadlines, and proof of identity for online registrations would greatly reduce the potential for manipulation across state lines. Founding fathers like James Madison believed in the role of government as a protector of public rights and interests, a principle embedded in his vision of a balanced and fair system (Madison, 1788). For the United States to uphold its commitment to free and fair elections, Congress must act decisively and promptly, addressing the vulnerabilities in the election systems of Democrat-led states that have resisted reform.

In summary, the Elections Clause empowers Congress to enact necessary changes that would bring much-needed uniformity and security to federal elections. With past precedence affirming this authority, Congress has both the constitutional basis and the urgent mandate to enact reforms. Acting now, while there is a Republican majority, presents a unique opportunity to safeguard the democratic process, ensure consistent standards, and uphold the foundational principles of American governance for future generations.

3. Additional Proposed Legislative Reforms

3.1. Revision of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 was initially enacted to increase voter participation and make registration more accessible across the United States. However, in recent years, several vulnerabilities in the NVRA have surfaced, particularly regarding inadequate safeguards for verifying citizenship and identity. Revising the NVRA to include stricter documentation requirements, akin to financial Know Your Customer (KYC) standards, would strengthen the integrity of voter rolls and ensure that only eligible citizens are registered to vote. Under KYC standards, individuals are required to present verified identification and proof of eligibility, such as legal status and address, for transactions in financial institutions. Applying similar standards to voter registration would address the current gaps that allow for unverifiable or potentially fraudulent registrations.

Implementing KYC-like requirements in the NVRA would require individuals to provide documentation of both identity and citizenship, such as a government-issued photo ID and proof of U.S. citizenship, during the registration process. This revision would align voter registration practices with those already established in sectors like banking, where verifying identity is critical for security. As the Heritage Foundation argues, requiring proof of citizenship would directly address vulnerabilities that enable non-citizens to register, ensuring that voter rolls more accurately represent the eligible voting population (Heritage Foundation, 2022).

Another area in need of reform within the NVRA is the 90-day restriction on voter roll maintenance before federal elections, which prevents states from making updates to voter rolls, such as removing inactive or deceased voters, within this period. Adjusting this restriction to better align with the last day of voter registration in each state would provide more flexibility for maintaining accurate voter lists. For example, by moving the 90-day period closer to the state-specific voter registration deadline, states could remove ineligible voters with sufficient time to ensure clean rolls prior to Election Day. Alternatively, establishing a “cooling-off” period within the final days before an election—where no additions or removals can be made to the voter rolls—would still ensure that rolls are accurate while minimizing potential disruptions immediately prior to voting.

Critics of the 90-day restriction point out that it hinders efforts to maintain accurate and up-to-date voter rolls, leading to outdated lists that may include deceased individuals or those who have moved out of state. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) notes that voter roll inaccuracies have led to thousands of problematic registrations across states, which can contribute to vulnerabilities in the voting process (Public Interest Legal Foundation, 2023). Allowing states greater flexibility to clean up their rolls closer to Election Day, while observing a brief, final “freeze” period before voting begins, would better balance the accessibility goals of the NVRA with the need for election integrity.

Updating the NVRA to include documentation requirements for citizenship and revising the 90-day restriction would represent a significant step toward securing federal elections. Such reforms would align with principles of accuracy and accountability, fostering a voting process that better reflects the will of eligible voters and minimizes opportunities for ineligible registrations. In light of the growing recognition of vulnerabilities within the voter registration system, these proposed revisions offer a balanced approach to modernizing election standards while preserving accessibility.

3.2. Update to the Civil Rights Act

Amending the Civil Rights Act to include stricter penalties for election record-keeping violations and broader accountability for negligence is essential for enhancing election integrity in the United States. Currently, the Civil Rights Act includes provisions aimed at protecting the integrity of the voting process, but penalties for record-keeping violations are often insufficient to deter fraud or negligence. Strengthening these penalties would ensure that election officials prioritize accurate record-keeping, fostering a more reliable electoral system.

Introducing stricter penalties for violations related to election record-keeping would hold officials accountable for maintaining accurate and up-to-date voter information. Studies have shown that poor record-keeping, such as outdated voter rolls, can contribute to election vulnerabilities, allowing ineligible voters to participate and increasing the risk of fraud. As noted by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (2023), inaccurate records not only affect the fairness of elections but also erode public confidence in election outcomes. Increasing fines and potential criminal consequences for election officials who fail to comply with record-keeping standards would send a clear message about the importance of maintaining precise voter data.

Expanding penalties to cover negligence would address gaps that currently allow certain types of voter fraud to go unpunished. Currently, the Civil Rights Act penalizes intentional acts that interfere with the voting process, but it lacks provisions for cases of negligence that can lead to equally damaging outcomes. Election officials who fail to adequately maintain voter rolls or verify identities, even through oversight or lack of diligence, contribute to vulnerabilities that can undermine the electoral process. By broadening the Civil Rights Act to include penalties for negligence, the law would cover a wider range of failures, ensuring that officials are incentivized to exercise care in managing election records. This measure would serve as a powerful deterrent against complacency, as even unintentional errors would carry consequences if they compromise election integrity.

Incorporating these changes into the Civil Rights Act would support the goal of more secure, transparent elections. Stricter penalties for record-keeping violations and an expanded focus on negligence would ensure that election officials are both capable of and motivated to uphold high standards of accuracy and accountability. These amendments would help close significant gaps in election administration, ensuring a fairer electoral process for all citizens.

3.3. Amendments to the Help America Vote Act

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 was a pivotal legislative step in modernizing election systems across the United States, particularly through the creation of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). These guidelines provide a framework for secure, accessible, and reliable voting technology; however, they remain voluntary, allowing states to adopt different standards for their election infrastructure. Amending HAVA to make these standards mandatory, alongside introducing penalties for non-compliance, would greatly strengthen election integrity by ensuring consistent and secure practices across all jurisdictions.

Making the Voluntary Voting Systems Standards (VVSG) mandatory would address current discrepancies in voting security and functionality. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which oversees the VVSG, emphasizes that these standards cover essential aspects of election technology, including cybersecurity, accessibility, and reliability (Election Assistance Commission, 2022). Despite their importance, the voluntary nature of the VVSG has led to uneven adoption among states, creating potential vulnerabilities where less secure systems are in use. By mandating adherence to these standards, Congress could ensure that every voting system used in federal elections meets a baseline level of security and reliability, safeguarding against manipulation and technical failures that can compromise election results.

Implementing penalties for non-compliance with these mandatory standards would further incentivize election officials to maintain secure voting systems. Potential penalties could include fines, loss of federal funding, and, in severe cases, criminal charges for officials who knowingly disregard VVSG standards. The Public Interest Legal Foundation argues that election security is crucial for public trust, and enforcing standards with penalties would hold election administrators accountable, ensuring that officials prioritize the security and integrity of their systems (Public Interest Legal Foundation, 2023). Criminal charges, reserved for cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct, would serve as a strong deterrent against any intentional disregard for established security practices, emphasizing the seriousness of adhering to secure voting protocols.

Amending HAVA to make the VVSG mandatory and enforceable would mark a substantial improvement in the security and reliability of the nation’s election infrastructure. These changes would protect the democratic process by establishing a clear, enforceable standard that all states must follow, reducing the likelihood of system vulnerabilities and enhancing voter confidence in election outcomes. By prioritizing consistent and secure voting practices, Congress can address existing gaps in election technology and set a new standard of accountability for election administration.

3.4. Reassessment of Census Practices to Exclude Illegal Aliens from Apportionment

The inclusion of illegal aliens in census counts for congressional apportionment fundamentally distorts the balance of representation in the United States. By counting individuals who are not legally under U.S. jurisdiction, the census inflates population totals in states with higher illegal alien populations, disproportionately increasing their representation in Congress and the Electoral College. As Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 54, representation should be distributed according to those who have a legitimate stake in the country’s governance, namely citizens who are under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to its laws (Hamilton, 1788). When individuals without legal status are included, states such as California and New York gain additional seats in Congress and electoral votes, while other states with lower illegal populations are deprived of representation that would more accurately reflect the legitimate citizenry of the United States.

The term "jurisdiction" as applied in the Constitution refers to those who are subject to the U.S. legal and political authority. John Locke, whose philosophies deeply influenced the Founding Fathers, argued that legitimate governance extends only to those who consent to its authority and fall under its protection and laws (Locke, 1689). Illegal aliens, by their very presence without legal status, do not fall fully under the jurisdiction of the United States, as they have not formally submitted themselves to the nation's laws and protections through the process of legal residency or citizenship. This interpretation was supported by William Blackstone, who asserted that allegiance to a government is owed by those who, by virtue of law, have committed themselves to its authority (Blackstone, 1765). By including illegal aliens in apportionment, the current census practices blur the distinction between those who are legally recognized by the United States and those who are not, compromising the principle of fair representation.

To rectify this imbalance, Congress should pass legislation that clarifies that only individuals lawfully present in the U.S. will be included in census counts for apportionment. Such legislation would reinforce the original intent of the Founding Fathers, ensuring that representation reflects the population under U.S. jurisdiction rather than artificially inflating numbers to benefit certain states. This legislative action would send a strong message to states that create sanctuary policies, disincentivizing their attempts to undermine federal immigration law.

Additionally, states that stand to gain representation through accurate apportionment—such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Iowa, Utah, West Virginia, and Idaho—should consider filing a joint lawsuit against the Census Bureau. Their Attorneys General could pursue this matter through the courts, arguing that their citizens are unjustly deprived of congressional representation and electoral power. The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in New York v. Trump failed to address this issue directly, as the Court postponed judgment until the census data was complete. Now that the 2020 census data confirms that states with large illegal alien populations, like California, gain disproportionate representation, there is a solid basis for judicial review (Supreme Court of the United States, 2020).

This issue must be adjudicated to restore fairness to the apportionment process and discourage Democrat-led states from enacting policies that flout federal immigration laws. By allowing illegal aliens to boost their representation, these states dilute the voices of citizens in other states, violating the foundational principles of representative government. Only by recalibrating census practices can the United States ensure that each vote is weighted fairly, and each state receives the representation it is truly owed under the Constitution.

Conclusion

The 2024 Presidential election has highlighted pressing concerns about election integrity and potential vulnerabilities in election laws across the United States, particularly in Democrat-controlled states. This analysis identifies specific weaknesses in election security, such as relaxed voter ID requirements, unmonitored ballot drop boxes, all-mail voting, online voter registration without identity proof, and lenient policies for allowing illegal migrants and felons to participate in elections. Together, these practices create an environment where manipulation and fraud are possible, undermining voter confidence and raising questions about the intent behind these policies.

In states where Democrat-led legislatures are resistant to reforms that would tighten election security, a pattern emerges: policies that prioritize accessibility over verification, and that opponents argue may facilitate election manipulation for partisan gain. This resistance to reform underscores the need for federal intervention. Drawing on the authority of the Elections Clause, Congress has the power to set consistent standards that enhance the fairness and reliability of federal elections. By revisiting laws like the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, implementing mandatory voting system standards, and reassessing census practices, Congress could address the vulnerabilities discussed here.

This paper advocates for legislative reforms to establish uniform security measures across states, ensuring that election results genuinely reflect the will of the American people. By taking decisive action to strengthen election laws and maintain fair apportionment, Congress can reinforce the principles of representative democracy and protect the integrity of future elections.

References

America First Legal. (2024). America First Legal sues Arizona Secretary of State’s Office for illegally withholding list of 218,000 registered voters who have not provided proof of citizenship. America First Legal.

Ballotpedia. (2021). Legislation governing private funding for election administration in the United States, 2021. Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/Legislation_governing_private_funding_for_election_administration_in_the_United_States,_2021

Ballotpedia. (2024). When states can begin processing and counting absentee/mail-in ballots, 2024. Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/When_states_can_begin_processing_and_counting_absentee/mail-in_ballots%2C_2024

Blackstone, W. (1765). Commentaries on the Laws of England.

California State Legislature. (2024). California Voting Rights for Parolees. California State Legislature.

Center for Election Innovation & Research. (2022). 2022 Voter Registration Database (VRDB) Security Report. Election Innovation & Research.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (2023). Ballot Drop Box Resource Document. CISA.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (2023). Securing Voter Registration Data. CISA.

Election Assistance Commission. (2022). Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). Election Assistance Commission.

Elections Group. (2023). 7 Strategies for Enhancing Ballot Drop Box Security. Elections Group.

FAIR. (2023). Supreme Court allows Virginia to remove noncitizens from voter rolls. Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Firstpost. (2024). Ballot boxes destroyed in US (Washington, Oregon) days before Election Day. Retrieved from https://www.firstpost.com/world/united-states/ballot-boxes-destroyed-in-us-washington-oregon-days-before-election-day-13830217.html

Government Accountability Institute. (2023). A Case Study on Voter Fraud and the Lack of Voter ID Requirements Across State Lines. Government Accountability Institute.

Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist No. 54. The Federalist Papers.

Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist No. 59. The Federalist Papers.

Heritage Foundation. (2022). Illegal Aliens are Still Voting in Our Elections. Heritage Foundation.

Heritage Foundation. (2022). No, Prisoners Should Not Be Voting from Their Cells. Heritage Foundation.

Heritage Foundation. (2022). The Case for Requiring Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration. Heritage Foundation.

Heritage Foundation. (2022). The Case for Voter ID Laws: Ensuring Election Integrity. Heritage Foundation.

Heritage Foundation. (2022). We shouldn’t be promoting voting by mail. Heritage Foundation.

Just the News. (2023). Zuckerbucks return to rural areas: 20 states can receive private election funding. Just the News.

Locke, J. (1689). Second Treatise of Government.

Madison, J. (1788). Federalist No. 10. The Federalist Papers.

MIT Election Data and Science Lab. (2022). Voting by Mail and Absentee Voting. MIT Election Data and Science Lab.

MITRE Corporation. (2021). Recommended Security Controls for Voter Registration Systems. MITRE.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). Felon Voting Rights. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee Mail Ballots. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-11-receipt-and-postmark-deadlines-for-absentee-mail-ballots

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). States offering driver's licenses to immigrants. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/immigration/states-offering-drivers-licenses-to-immigrants

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). States with All-Mail Elections. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). Voter ID Laws. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). Voting Outside the Polling Place. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voting-outside-the-polling-place

New York State Governor’s Office. (2018). Governor Cuomo Issues Executive Order Restoring Voting Rights to Parolees.

Paxton, K. (2023). Mail Ballots: A Threat to Democracy? Texas Attorney General’s Office.

PBS. (2023). Widespread Problems with U.S. Mail System Could Disrupt Voting, Election Officials Warn.

Public Interest Legal Foundation. (2023). Improving Voter Roll Accuracy: A Guide to Election Integrity Reforms.

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

Supreme Court of the United States. (2020). New York v. Trump.

Wisconsin Elections Commission. (2022). Litigation Update FAQ - Priorities USA v. WEC - Drop Boxes. Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. (2021). Impact of Private Funding on Wisconsin Elections.

WFSB. (2023). Bridgeport election official fired over absentee ballot scandal. WFSB.