Let's see if this doesn't explain things better.
Under the U.S. Constitution, states have the primary authority to manage and conduct elections, even for federal offices like the presidency. Article II, Section 1 gives states the power to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." This means that individual states set the rules for their own elections, provided they follow basic federal requirements like those established by the Voting Rights Act.
In 2020, some states changed election rules—often in response to the COVID-19 pandemic—leading to concerns about whether those changes followed proper procedures. These changes were often challenged in court, with varying outcomes, but the general principle that states manage their own elections was upheld.
If one state can't challenge another state's election procedures, the question remains: Who can? The answer lies in the separation of powers and the legal process within each state.
- State Residents and Candidates: Typically, residents or candidates in the affected state have the legal standing to challenge that state's election laws or procedures. These challenges can be heard in state courts or, if constitutional rights are involved, federal courts.
- Congress: When it comes to federal elections, the U.S. Congress also has a role. The Electoral College votes are certified by Congress, and members of Congress can raise objections to a state’s results. In 2021, some lawmakers attempted to do this during the certification process, but the objections were ultimately overruled.
- Federal Courts: If election procedures in a state violate the U.S. Constitution or federal law, federal courts can intervene. For example, claims that a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or federal voting rights laws can be brought before federal courts.
In
Texas v. Pennsylvania, Texas attempted to challenge the election procedures in four other states (Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) by claiming that their irregularities harmed Texas voters. The Supreme Court rejected the case, stating that Texas lacked standing to challenge how another state conducted its election. The court reaffirmed that only those directly affected by the election results within a particular state—its residents and political candidates—can challenge that state's election laws.
While it’s understandable to question who has the right to hold states accountable, election oversight is primarily a matter for state courts, federal courts (in specific cases), and Congress during the certification process. State autonomy in managing elections, coupled with judicial review, ensures that disputes are handled through the legal system, not by allowing one state to intervene in another's elections.
