What even is the argument for "state's rights" when it comes, at least, to the presidential election?
Why should there not be a universal, national standard that all states, all cities, and all counties must adhere to in the case of presidential elections?
This doesn't even past the smell test of basic logic, or reason.
ELI5.
Because the Constitution did not give authority to the Federal government to run elections.
Art. I, §4, cl. 1, which states “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
Art. II, §1, cl. 2, which states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
First article is irrelevant. It explicitly refers to elections for SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES.
I'm not even sure the second article is much of a case, either. Strictly reading it suggests it is about appointment of electors (relevant to the electoral college) by the legislature, not about barring a national standard for polling processes, or the manner in which votes are counted.
Do you agree that the Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." and that since the Constitution does not delegate presidential elections to the Federal government, these elections become the responsibility of the States?
Yes, I didn't mean to copy Article I. That was a mistake.
Sure, but there are other amendments and clauses that can (and have) been read to impose federal restrictions on how states conduct various aspects of their elections. It seems to me that the aforementioned national standard could thus be argued, at the very least, specifically as it relates to the presidential election.
The elections clause includes this line, which is the line (I believe) that SCOTUS has used to allow federal imposition on the state's election processes in the past:
I can see that argument because it is very ambiguous language.
And if it can be read to impose federal regulations on the elections of Senators and Representatives, it can surely be read to allow federal regulations on Presidential elections.
at minimum, it could specify cut off times for ballots to be received and regulations specifying the paper stock that must be used for printing ballots to be provided by the FEC /DHS.
They do have the right at the legislative level. In the swing states the courts usurped them.
This is why Trump will win at the SC level.
we aren't a democracy
people don't elect the president... people elect state governments, who appoint electors, who vote for one of the candidates with guidance from their state laws (faithless electors, split electoral votes vs winner take all, etc)
does trump beat Hillary if Obama was in charge of counting the votes?
no system is perfect, better to work on the one we have than to throw it away and hope we do better next time
Yes. Thank you. I already understand all of that. And that changes nothing about the argument being made.
I shall reiterate for you...
Why should there not be a universal, national standard that all states, all cities, and all counties must adhere to in the case of presidential elections?
If there's a universal, national standard, who is in charge at any level would not matter, or at the very least, would matter less. In math, we have universal standards for calculating numbers. It doesn't matter who is doing the calculation because the standard is the dictator. We should have universal standards for calculating votes.
One state accepting votes beyond election day while another state does not is an example of disorder. The election of the president should be as orderly as is reasonably possible, and a universal, national standard promotes this end.
while I agree with you in principle it would take a constitutional amendment to make it legal and enforceable
maybe we can get 34 states houses to pass something, but we will never get it done through the federal legislature unless there are 68 republican senators one day and only one of them is a Mitt Romney
This. The Constitution does not delegate authority to the United States to conduct presidential elections. If you are an originalist, then the only way to enable a national standard for overseeing presidential elections is to amend the Constitution.
The Founders were brilliant and they got many things right, but they also overlooked clarification on some key issues (this being one). Whether that was intentional because they had faith that States would be able to effectively and fairly oversee presidential elections, or if it was just an oversight, I don't know. What I do know is, until a new amendment is ratified, there will be no constitutionally legal way to achieve a national standard.
Not necessarily
It seems to me this line in the elections clause gives Congress constitutional authority to impose such a national standard in the form of a regulation.
I can see this arguments validity. This is the reason for needing a Supreme Court.