[jedberg]

Sadly many conservatives believe that voting is an exclusively state's rights issue.

That made sense when we had a weak federal government and were mostly a conglomeration of states that agreed to work together.

But now the federal government controls a lot of our lives. The way Texas runs their elections has a significant impact on my life here in California.

I should have a say in how Texas runs their elections (and they should have a say in how California runs theirs).

[munk-a]

This state's rights issue was, thankfully, already lost when laws were passed to combat widespread racial discrimination[1] in voting. Those laws have been repealed but the federal government has a good historical justification for enforcing more laws around voter accessibility.

1. Among other requirements, the ADA likely requires that polling places and some proportion of booths be wheelchair accessible and mandates the accessibility of braille ballots.

[jeffdavis]

Isn't it at least a little scary to you to nationalize the voting process? Would you want a Voting Administration with presidential appointees deciding how to register voters, collect votes, and count them?

I guess other countries do things that way with lots of observers, etc. to try to avoid the worst problems. But I'm not excited about my state/county giving up its role (which it seems to do just fine) under the theory that the federal government will do better in some other state and county that doesn't currently do a good job.

[lidHanteyk]

If you want to elect folks to federal offices directly, then you need a federal vote. The current system requires an awful lot of trust to be invested into states that have consistently shown themselves unable to justify being trusted.

[vsskanth]

yeah but how is it state's rights to conduct federal elections though ? I guess its somewhere in the constitution ?

[Lukeas14]

That's correct. "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, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Technically all elections are state/local elections. We don't directly vote for anything at the federal level. Each state has full control over who which presidential candidate it sends its electoral college votes to. That's why states like Virginia can decide to send all of theirs to the winner of the national popular vote.

[vsskanth]

Thanks.

[olliej]

yes, conservatives also believe that slavery was a states rights issue, the civil war was "the war of northern aggression", women's health care is a federal issue, and lgbt people don't have any rights.

We need to stop acting like this hypocrisy and bigotry is a reasonable PoV, and stop bargaining with them. Conservatives and the GOP have a proven track record of bad faith, and any claims they make should be presumed false or misleading until proven otherwise.

[jeffdavis]

"Conservatives" are not a single monolithic block of people, and labeling them as such doesn't help in any way.

Both sides regularly use "States' Rights" if and when convenient. When your side has a majority in Congress, go for a national bill; when your side has a majority in a state, go for a state bill. So it's easy to point to hypocrisy, but I tired long ago of "hypocrisy" as an argument. It's not convincing anyone, it's just a way to score points.

But States' Rights are a legitimate principle, too. The EU member states have rights (including the right to leave, apparently). I think retaining some autonomy is a good hedge against the risk of bad things happening at a higher level of government.