Yesterday, President Trump fired all the remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the federal agency responsible for guidance and support to state election administration. This dangerous attack on an independent entity established by Congress was enabled by the Supreme Court’s misguided decision to overturn precedents protecting such agencies from presidential control.
Some will speculate about other agencies President Trump might target and debate this expanded presidential power. But, to us, his action illustrates another critical problem that isn’t talked about enough – America faces a crisis of election governance.
Election governance refers to the individuals and institutions that control and oversee elections — including how voters register, candidates qualify, districts get drawn, and results are verified. Democracy depends on governance being protected from partisan pressures and from politicians with a stake in the outcome. In many other areas of public life, we recognize the importance of independence governance: such as corporate boards that safeguard shareholders’ interests or trustees who govern universities. Elections deserve no less.
The President’s hobbling of the EAC is an aggressive escalation in his ongoing campaign to sow doubt and distrust in our elections. And his actions lay bare a worrisome truth: our election system is not fully protected against partisan abuse.
Of course, this problem did not begin with the attack on the EAC. America’s election governance system has always been rife with structural vulnerabilities and embedded conflicts of interest.
To name a few:
Partisan Redistricting: Most states give politicians the power to draw their own districts — an enormous governance flaw that enables partisan gerrymandering and renders the vast majority of congressional and state legislative elections uncompetitive.
Election Official Conflicts of Interest: Across the country, chief election officials at the state and local level are almost entirely chosen in partisan processes — including election and appointment by parties, politicians, or party-aligned boards. The close link between the officials who run our elections and the parties competing in them creates a fertile terrain for conflicts of interest — with even perceived conflicts damaging voter trust.
Ballot Measure Manipulation: All 26 states with citizen ballot measures entrust partisan officials with key roles in the process, such as approving petitions for signature gathering, verifying signatures, and writing ballot language. Examples abound of officials using this authority to stymie measures they oppose.
These are just a few examples. And — even in this essay in which we are protesting the undermining of the EAC — we must also acknowledge that this commission, too, is hindered by an old-fashioned Noah’s Ark model of Democratic/Republican pairs. Like many other structures built on that model, it sometimes suffers from gridlock.
Of course, this problem did not begin with the attack on the EAC. America’s election governance system has always been rife with structural vulnerabilities and embedded conflicts of interest.
Our governance flaws are particularly dire viewed in global context. Most democracies establish clear guardrails to insulate election governance entities from partisan influence. Some have created whole fourth branches of government for this function. For example, India’s constitutionally established national Election Commission played an essential role in building a new democracy among hundreds of disparate communities.
While we reckon with the immediate fallout of the President’s assault on the EAC, we must also commit to the urgent effort of insulating election governance from continued partisan control. The to-do list is long: Restoring sanity to redistricting through federal standards. Establishing legal guardrails to reduce conflicts of interest when election officials are on the ballot. Elevating neutrality as an explicit goal rather than assuming the parties will balance each other. And restructuring key election institutions to ensure that expertise, integrity, and impartiality guide decision-making.
For far too long, election governance in the U.S. has relied on public officials voluntarily putting principles above their partisan backgrounds. That was always a shaky foundation, but in today’s hyperpolarized world — complicated by the President’s “new normal” of disregarding traditional checks and balances — this approach is irresponsible and dangerous. Our nation must take action to move election governance out of the hands of the politicians.
This change cannot come soon enough.
The takeaway here is that our electoral system is way too much under the control of the parties. Under the leadership of the president, the need to accept the will of the voters (as in a democracy) is under assault.