Fans of the musical \u201cHamilton\u201d know three things about the nation\u2019s first Treasury secretary because of Lin-Manuel Miranda\u2019s brilliance. First, that Alexander Hamilton cheated on his wife, Eliza. Second, he was killed by the vice president, Aaron Burr. Third, and most importantly, he was considered a highly principled man. And when it came to the topic of nationalizing elections, do you know how this Revolutionary War vet and founding father characterized doing so?<\/p>\n
A threat.<\/p>\n
Referring to corruptible public officials, Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: No 59<\/a>: \u201cWith so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people to discontinue the choice.\u201d<\/p>\n Hamilton\u2019s prescient views became the framework for the Election Clause in the Constitution. And since returning to the White House, President Trump has been searching for ways to usurp it. Last month he made calls to nationalize elections<\/a>. This month he\u2019s at it again.<\/p>\n He\u2019s also pushing Congress to pass his so-called SAVE Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. It sounds innocuous until you realize a driver\u2019s license isn\u2019t good enough; a passport would often be required. But half the country doesn\u2019t have a passport, and it costs roughly $200 and a few weeks to get one. The logistical burden is unreasonable and cruel<\/a>: Consider that this year, during primary season, we\u2019ve already witnessed natural disaster \u2014 such as the tornadoes that recently ripped through the Midwest or the fires in Texas \u2014 upend entire communities. Many people would not have been able to vote, simply because they had been separated from their papers during the disaster.<\/p>\n The financial obstacles that would be created by the SAVE Act are at least as onerous: Why would Congress choose to financially burden voters \u2014 with what is essentially an unlawful poll tax \u2014 at a time when the unemployment rate and gas prices are up and the approval rating for nearly everyone in office is down? There are a couple of reasons. One is that the party controlling Congress hopes to suppress voting in order to defy the will of the American majority and cling to power.<\/p>\n Another reason lawmakers support this terrible bill is simply that Trump wants it. Some Republicans in office are so afraid of angering a vengeful president that they would rather entertain his authoritarian tendencies than go through the fire of his opposition during a primary.<\/p>\n For politicians such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who this week changed his long-held position on the filibuster in order to push the SAVE Act, it\u2019s simply about political survival. He needs the president\u2019s endorsement<\/a> heading into the runoff for his Senate seat.<\/p>\n Trump has called the election overhaul bill his top priority \u2014 not the war he started with Iran, not returning the billions collected from illegal tariffs<\/a>, not justice for Jeffrey Epstein\u2019s victims<\/a>. Before there was a Constitution, there was a warning, written by Hamilton and other founders, whose concerns about nationalized elections are well documented and have proved to be well founded.<\/p>\n You would think a nation in the midst of beating its proverbial chest about our 250th birthday would take more heed from the country\u2019s founders. But nope: This week Florida state lawmakers, in an attempt to appease their state\u2019s most powerful resident, passed an election overhaul law<\/a> that mirrors the federal SAVE Act. More red states are likely to follow, not because a national wave of voter fraud has been unearthed by authorities, but because the authorities want to stay in the good graces of someone who has yet to prove any widespread fraud<\/a> other than his own<\/a>.<\/p>\n The party that famously railed against \u201cthe bridge to nowhere\u201d is now offering bills that solve nonexistent problems. Or in some cases, creating problems, particularly for women who changed their names after marriage so their state IDs don\u2019t match their birth certificates.<\/p>\n Cornyn is not alone in exchanging his principles for Trump\u2019s favor; he\u2019s just the most recent. However, the manner in which he announced his flip flop was particularly tone deaf.<\/p>\n \u201cIf a man takes a swing at you and barely misses, that doesn\u2019t make him a pacifist \u2014 it just means he has bad aim,\u201d Cornyn wrote in an op-ed about the bill<\/a> for the New York Post, the newspaper founded by Hamilton in 1801. \u201cStanding still and giving him a second free swing wouldn\u2019t be wise or honorable: it would be foolish.\u201d<\/p>\n In 2016, then-candidate Trump took his first big swing at our elections when he implied \u2014 without evidence \u2014 that his opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, had rigged the election after losing to him in the Iowa Republican caucus. Reportedly Trump even tried to get the state\u2019s party chair to overturn the result. He\u2019s been throwing jabs at our elections ever since. The Jan. 6 riot was a haymaker that barely missed. Given the president\u2019s propensity to hand out Trump 2028 hats, it seems passing the SAVE Act would be, in Cornyn\u2019s words, setting voters up to stand there while Trump takes another swing at our democracy.<\/p>\n YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow<\/a><\/p>\n Insights <\/p>\n L.A. Times Insights<\/a> delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles. <\/p>\n Viewpoint This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis<\/a> Perspectives <\/p>\n The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.<\/p>\n Ideas expressed in the piece<\/p>\n Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 59, warned that exclusive state power over federal elections posed an existential threat to the Union, cautioning that \u201ca combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States\u201d could \u201caccomplish the destruction of the Union\u201d through control of election regulations[1]<\/a><\/p>\n The SAVE Act requiring proof of citizenship to vote imposes unreasonable logistical and financial burdens on voters, effectively functioning as a poll tax by requiring passports costing approximately $200 that roughly half the country does not possess[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Natural disasters and unforeseen circumstances already disrupt voting access, and citizenship verification requirements would further prevent Americans from voting by separating them from necessary documentation during emergencies such as tornadoes or fires[1]<\/a><\/p>\n The stated rationale for election overhaul legislation\u2014addressing voter fraud\u2014is not supported by evidence, as authorities have failed to unearth a national wave of voter fraud despite repeated claims[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Republicans supporting the SAVE Act are motivated by partisan interests rather than election security concerns, with some lawmakers abandoning long-held principles to secure Trump\u2019s political endorsement during primary races[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Election nationalization efforts represent an authoritarian threat to democracy that the nation\u2019s founders specifically warned against, making it imperative to heed historical lessons about centralized electoral control[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Different views on the topic<\/p>\n Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers that the national government required ultimate authority over election regulations to prevent state legislatures from abandoning their responsibility to choose federal representatives, which could render \u201cthe existence of the Union entirely at their mercy\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n The Constitution\u2019s design allocates election regulation authority primarily to states with a federal backstop, recognizing that the national government must possess a check on state power to maintain union stability and prevent states from exploiting their regulatory control[3]<\/a>[4]<\/a><\/p>\n Federalist No. 60 establishes that the system of separated powers\u2014with the House elected directly by people, the Senate by state legislatures, and the president by electors\u2014creates structural safeguards preventing any single faction from monopolizing electoral control[2]<\/a><\/p>\n