DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump urges Republicans to 'take over' and 'nationalize' voting

"We have states that are so crooked and they're counting votes," he said.

President Donald Trump on Monday called on Republicans to "take over" and "nationalize" voting as he continued to make false claims about the electoral process in the U.S. with the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon.

Trump made the comments in an interview with former FBI Director Dan Bongino, who resigned from his post in December and returned to podcasting.

Trump alleged noncitizen voting was improperly influencing election outcomes, though experts insist such instances are incredibly rare and already illegal, and told Bongino it was "amazing that the Republicans aren't tougher on it."

"The Republicans should say, 'We want to take over,'" Trump said. "We should take over the voting ... in at least many, 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. We have states that are so crooked and they're counting votes."

The Constitution gives states the authority to conduct federal elections, subject to laws passed by Congress. The elections clause states, in part, that "state legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate."

Trump didn't elaborate on how he wanted Republicans to "nationalize" voting.

Asked by ABC News for specifics on what Trump meant, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded, "President Trump cares deeply about the safety and security of our elections -- that’s why he’s urged Congress to pass the SAVE Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the chamber's top Democrat, slammed Trump over his comments to Bongino.

"Just a few hours ago, Donald Trump said he wants to nationalize elections around the country. That's what Trump said. You think he believes in democracy? He said, 'We want to take over, the Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,'" Schumer said on the Senate floor. "Does Donald Trump need a copy of the Constitution? What he is saying is outlandishly illegal."

Trump's agenda is at stake in this year’s elections, where all seats in the House and 35 in the Senate will be up for grabs. Currently, Republicans hold narrow margins in both chambers -- but midterm cycles are historically unkind to the sitting president's party.

Last year, Trump and other Republicans pushed for mid-decade redistricting in order to gain additional House seats. The president warned Republicans last month that they have to win the midterms or he will get "impeached."

Trump also continues to litigate his 2020 election loss, spreading false claims of fraud.

Last week, the FBI searched and seized original 2020 voting records from the Fulton County Elections and Operations Hub in Georgia, a swing state that went blue in 2020 and helped secure Joe Biden's victory.

"Now you're going to see something in Georgia where they were able to get, with a court order, the ballots. You're going to see some interesting things come out,” Trump said on Bongino's podcast.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-urges-republicans-nationalize-voting/story?id=129793658

Just need to go back to a few easy steps to fix the voting fraud. 1) Show your ID and match it vs a register and you get to vote. No ID and you're not registered, and you lost your right for that election to vote. 2) No early voting. There are set times the polls are open. You vote during that window if you want your vote to count. If they need to make election day a national holiday and no work allowed on election day that is fine but there needs to be a clear window. 3) If your out of town during the election you go to courthouse and file for absentee ballots and fill it out and send it in like the military does. All of the stupid voting laws made over the last 20 years has added so much complexity into the voting system it introduced the fraud into our elections.

Trump wants republicans to TAKE OVER elections. Anything to say about that? Are you willing to say to hell with the constitution for trump?

There is nothing wrong with early voting. The exact same rules apply to voting early as voting on election day.

I live in a heavily red state and we have early voting. My wife and I started voting early to avoid the longer waiting times on election say. We go to the same location and follow the exact same process as we did when we voted on election day.

IF voting were only allowed on election day it should be made a national holiday so everyone would be off work making it easier to vote. Making it harder to vote only puts people and businesses in a situation that makes things far more difficult for everyone concerned. It amazes me who it is that wants to make it more difficult to vote and it makes you wonder why that is.

You do know that the majority of the voting fraud has actually been PROVEN to be Republicans. . . . that's the reality. Not your warped BS about stolen elections that Trump won in 2020.

And ... it completely misses the point of King Trump trying to pee all over the constitution - AGAIN.

The Democrats stole a primary election in 2016 from Bernie Sanders. They stole the 2020 primary for Biden. Then they stole the election in 2020 from Donald Trump.

#brainwashed

Try to focus so you can stay on topic rather than drifting off into la la land.

"Constitution" look it up

"oath" look that up too

We do that in Ohio... MUST have ID... I gather a few states don't require it.

Do they take oaths on the Bible there?

And after Republicans doing their usual "That's not what he meant" BS, trump doubles down to show that's exactly what he meant. And listen to this twist as if he's never read the constitution...........

Trump doubles down on suggesting federal government 'get involved' in state elections

He listed Atlanta, Detroit and Philadelphia after making unfounded fraud claims.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday doubled down on his controversial suggestion that Republicans "nationalize" elections as he continued to make false claims of widespread voter fraud and refused to accept his 2020 defeat.

"If a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it," Trump said as he held a bill signing in the Oval Office surrounded by Republican lawmakers. "Because, you know, if you think about it, the state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don't know why the federal government doesn't do 'em anyway."

Trump added that, in some cases, "The federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can't count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take it over."

He repeated unfounded claims about the 2020 election, listing Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta after raising what he alleged to be “rigged, crooked elections."

The Constitution gives states the authority to run and administer federal elections, subject to laws passed by Congress.

The White House earlier Tuesday had sought to soften Trump's similar comments from Monday -- after Republican congressional leaders poured cold water on his idea.

Democrats, too, quickly blasted his remarks, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer likening them to that of a dictator.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday told reporters that Trump still supports states' constitutional authority to administer elections and that he was referring to the SAVE Act when he advocated for nationalizing elections.

"I don't think any rational person who's being honest with themselves would disagree with the idea of requiring citizens of this country to present an ID before casting a ballot in a federal election, or, frankly, in any election, and that's something the president wants to see happen," Leavitt said.

"The president believes in the United States Constitution, however, he believes there has obviously been a lot of fraud and irregularities that have taken place in American elections," she said.

On Tuesday, when a reporter reminded him that the Constitution dictates states should administer elections, Trump responded, "You know what, they can administer the election, but they have to do it honestly."

The Trump administration's sought to make several changes ahead of the 2026 midterms, including mid-decade redistricting in order to gain additional House seats and pressing at least 24 states to turn over voter data.

The GOP's SAVE Act would require states to obtain proof of citizenship before registering a person to vote for a federal election. Schumer has said the bill is a nonstarter in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to advance over a Democratic filibuster.

Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal and state elections, though some cities and localities allow noncitizens to vote in some local elections.

Trump's alleged undocumented immigrants have improperly influenced elections, but experts insist such instances are incredibly rare, and voter roll audits leading up to the 2024 election uncovered very few instances of noncitizen voting.

Several Republican hard-liners in the House wanted to tie the SAVE Act to the government funding package that passed on Tuesday, but ultimately did not tie up the legislation.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, who was in the Oval Office with Trump on Tuesday afternoon, called the bill a "top priority" earlier in the day.

"The president is expressing his frustration about the problems that we have in some of these blue states, where election integrity is not always guaranteed," Johnson said at a news conference. "We have to figure out solutions to that problem."

When pressed whether that means a federal takeover is warranted, Johnson replied, "No, no, no."

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, when earlier Tuesday asked about Trump's comments about nationalizing voting, also pointed to the SAVE Act.

"I think the president has clarified what he meant by that, and that is that he supports the SAVE Act. So with respect to whether or not that signifies ensuring that only citizens of this country vote in our elections, that's something I think we all agree with," Thune said during his weekly leadership press conference.

"There are other other views, probably when it comes to nationalizing and federalizing elections, but I think on, at least on that narrow issue, which is what the SAVE Act get that -- I think that's what the president was addressing," Thune added.

Thune vowed to put the SAVE Act on the floor for a vote while throwing cold water on ending the filibuster to pass the legislation -- something Trump has advocated for.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...olved-state-elections/story?id=129826521

Trump has continued to push this false narrative ever since he lost the 2020 election. When a narcissist loses he can't believe it's true so somebody must have cheated.

I'm torn on this.

On one hand, if the Constitution doesn't state the Feds have the power, then the States do. Period. End of story. Want it changed, do an Amendment.
On the other hand, I've always felt that the Federal level should have oversight on Federal elections, without question.

That being said, though, ALL elections are state-level elections because we do not directly elect a President and Senate/House positions are the state choosing who it sends. Yes, they go to a federal-level job, but they are chosen by their state. The Feds should have no ownership of that at all. For the President, each state has its election which is then used to guide the Electoral votes, so - again - it is not in the Federal domain.

What I would support is some degree of regulation/standardization with some degree of oversight/audit authority that reports to the DHS/FBI, House, & Senate.
The regulation/standardization would pertain to equipment, procedures, chain of custody requirements, etc...
The oversight/audit would simply be a legal mechanism for outside validation to prevent obstructionism, but should require probably cause and a judge.

What we DO need to one degree or another is utter transparency, accountability, and a restored faith in the validity of the systems used. Things like Virginia trying to pass laws explicitly outlawing hand-counting of ballots for any reason simply should not be happening. There's zero justifiable reason for outlawing a hands-on visual validation of results by humans.



p.s. I absolutely abhor the phrase and idea of "nationalize" regarding anything.

Before we even discuss amending the constitution, don't we have to determine the need for such an amendment? There has been NO CREDIBLE proof of major voter fraud.. Not at the level that would have changed results anywhere. Sure Trump says there is, but every court has found, when presented with a case, that it's simply not the case.

Of course, Republicans have been saying this but all they do is fall in line with Trump. Kinda like eating the dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio.... Wasn't true then, not true now.. But when did truth ever get in his way.

So what say we determine if a change is needed before jumping through hoops to make it happen. It's not like we don't have greater problems to solve at the moment.

There are a few issues with this. At this time Republicans hold all three branches of the government along with a majority in the SCOTUS.

There are zero checks and balances to insure the federal government doesn't twist, exaggerate or even invent what they will label as "election/voter fraud".

What we are seeing is trump targeting specific blue state locations so it's already a political issue, not an election issue. He plainly named and stated places where Democrats won to target but not the entire nation as a whole. The only one being accused of election fraud are the democrats. What is going on here is obvious.

The constitution plainly forbids control of elections by the federal government. The way we "feel or what we think" about that is irrelevant.

Maybe our forefathers saw the possibility that if they didn't take such measures we would see exactly what we are seeing being attempted now.

And it puzzles me where all of those people went who were so loudly proclaiming that the federal government should stay out of states. To allow state and local governments to have more control over themselves and leave them alone.

I guess don't tread on me only applies to them and it's just fine when the people they support do it to others. Strange how that works because their silence is deafening at this point.

We're still here. See above. The Constitution is and always shall be above all else.
However, if it is done in a manner that doesn't conflict with the Constitution, then some level of oversight to prevent it being the Wild West and to restore faith in the system is warranted.


At the least, there has to be standard with a path to rigorous accountability. Unfortunately, much of that comes in the form of fights over whether or not people have to prove who they are to vote as well as whether or not the census should count all people or only citizens. Those two things are the likely the biggest issues in play.

As we're all aware by now, the census determines apportionment and apportionment is the distribution of the finite number of seats in the House AND electoral votes. When one state gains a seat or EC vote, it can only do so at the expense of another.
Voter ID has its issues with implementation, but it is a solid idea. As-is, a number of states already require an ID to vote - I fail to see why they all cannot. At worst, states would have to begin issuing their State IDs at no cost to their residents, and given what we all pay in taxes that should not be a problem. They could still require people to pay for a driver's license because that form of ID involves a privilege. It's a super simple fix that would give everyone a lot of peace of mind regarding election integrity.

People are "proving who they are". No non citizens can vote in national or state elections. There are some exceptions for local elections only.

There is currently legislation before congress to require a photo ID in order to vote.

None of what you posted actually addresses the federal government targeting only blue cities and states to take over their elections and them having the right to do so.

I have to show an ID to open a bank account or buy beer when I am clearly over the age of 21...resisting the requirement to show an ID before voting is ridiculous. There is only one logical, reasonable explanation for resisting an ID requirement to vote.

Actually there's more than one reason but some people refuse to listen to it.

I'm all for requiring a photo ID under certain conditions. One, it should be free or else you're putting an obstacle in the way for a lot of voters. There should be many places in poor and rural areas to get that ID and to vote so people don't have to travel long distances to obtain one. There should be enough polling places to vote where people aren't forced to stand in line for hours.

Millions of people in this country don't have the money to even open a bank account. They don't have enough money to purchase a vehicle. I can vote at two locations easily. One on election day less than 5 minutes from my home. A second location for early voting less than 10 minutes from my home. But then I'm not financially restrained nor have obstacles put in my way that would make it more difficult for me to vote.

I'm all for voter I.D as long as it isn't used as just another manner to make it harder for the poor, elderly and disabled to vote.

The only way it holds up constitutionally IS for it to be free, and I just did a quick Googles and it turns out that many states already do just that, particularly in states that require ID for voting. They still charge for a driver's license, but a state ID can be obtained at no charge. In Ohio, residents 17 and older can obtain a state ID card at no cost from the BMV.

So, generally speaking, there is no financial obstruction to obtaining an ID, and most (all?) of the poor and elderly typically cited as reasons it is an obstruction already have IDs because they need to have them to receive benefits from the state.

That's true for Ohio and some states which would fit the description I just laid out. But if this is passed on a national scale it should apply nationally. And as I mentioned, closing polling locations in poor and rural areas have made it much harder for those people to vote. It's pretty obvious what the game plan is here..................

Protecting Your Vote: 1 in 5 Election Day polling places have closed over last decade

Closures accelerated after SCOTUS rolled back the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/protecting-vote-1-5-election-day-polling-places/story?id=114990347

Closing polling locations is a separate issue and has no bearing on the IDs issue, but I won't disagree that it makes it more difficult.

If this were enacted nationwide, then all states that do not currently offer state IDs for free would have to do so, and those state IDs would have to be RealID

I think we're pretty much saying the same thing here.

They can always just put a stamp on an envelope. No need to find a ride, no wear and tear on their shoes. Unless of course, they can't afford a stamp.

At this point it sounds as if you're arguing with yourself.

I suppose you're just going to ignore the thousands of polling places that have been closed in poor and rural areas over the past decade. Same as it ever was....

So Leavitt tries to claim that Trump was talking about voter ID - which of course Trump failed to mention ONCE in his little tirade .... and then Trump goes on a second time - fails to mention voter ID and still continues to talk about elections being run at the federal level .... oh and for good measure once again claiming voter fraud and things which have not a shred of evidence and in fact have been disproven in many courts.

And in separate news - Trump posts racist memes of Obama. The WH ties to defend it then takes it down. And the fanboys will continue to try to shill for this guy and probably even try to tell you that images of Obama's as apes is not racist.

cant. make. this. schiz. up