#32: Good Behavior
/
He understands that others might be afraid, and he pledges to answers their concerns as best he can.
Read More
#44: Things the states cannot do
/
A reasonable person can read the text and see what it plainly says. But that isn’t always a good guide to what’s going to happen.
Read More#47-48: Going over the line
/
What you need to know today is that the careful balance of roles and responsibilities Madison describes no longer holds. The three branches no longer stay in their lanes.
Read More#49-50: Planning to update the Constitution
/
The people are the only legitimate fountain of power.
Read More#52-53: Congressional qualifications & money
/
In today’s environment of money-driven politics, the two-year election cycle of the House of Representatives ensures that members will be fundraising continually. It does not establish intimate sympathy with the people.
Read More#58: Will the Number of Members Be Augmented?
/
In addition to his low opinion of the quality of people who would sit in an expanded future Congress, Madison also recognized that increasing membership would inevitably diminish the role of most members and would concentrate power in the hands of a few movers and shakers.
Read More#59-61: Who controls elections?
/Hamilton make his case for the Constitutional provisions for control of elections in these three essays. Article I, Section IV holds the language he defends:
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 Place of Choosing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Putting it simply, the Constitution says each state is free to run elections as they see fit, to use whatever method of collecting votes they choose, and so forth. But the Constitution also allows the Congress to step in and impose some national guidance on the states.
It should be no surprise that the Congress has overruled the states on many occasions. In 1845 Congress passed a law making the Tuesday after the first Monday in November the date for presidential elections in every state. In 1872 Congress fixed that same day for congressional elections as well.
In addition, the Congress has made more people eligible to vote. The 15th Amendment in 1865 allowed Black men to vote, though states retained enough control over process that southern blacks were prevented. In 1920, Congress said women could vote and every state had to comply. The national government controlled voting in several southern states (where rife discrimination against black voters had persisted) for decades. Other instances of national oversight of elections includes:
Voting Rights Act of 1965,
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986
National Voter Registration Act of 1993
Help America Vote Act of 2002
The most interesting insight we gain from reading these essays is that Hamilton was most concerned about a danger that has never occurred.
Nothing can be more evident, than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate it, by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to administer its affairs.
In other words, if states controlled elections entirely, they could refuse to hold congressional elections. By not electing members of Congress, hostile states could stop the Congress from meeting and acting. Never in US history has a state refused to hold elections as a method of controlling political outcomes. It was probably a real possibility in the days of only 13 states. Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina could have deprived the congress of a quirom, maybe, if they’d conspired to do it. But the day when that could happen is long gone now. It is hard to determine in hindsight whether Article I, Section IV has been remarkably effective (in thwarting the genuine danger of a states boycott of elections) or an unnecessary solution to a dreamed-up problem.
Another worthwhile bit to note in this section is that Hamilton doesn’t not seem o care much about voters’ rights. He admits the provisions of the Constitution are likely to allow some voter suppression. But he’s satisfied that it will never suppress so many votes as to cause a revolution:
It is not difficult to conceive that this characteristic right of freedom [i.e., the right to vote] may, in certain turbulent and factious seasons, be violated, in respect to a particular class of citizens, by a victorious and overbearing majority; but that so fundamental a privilege, in a country so situated and enlightened, should be invaded to the prejudice of the great mass of the people, by the deliberate policy of the government, without occasioning a popular revolution, is altogether inconceivable and incredible.
When Hamilton wrote this, he was imagining that businessmen — white businessmen — might succeed in keeping white farmers from voting and that Protestants — white male Protestants — might keep white male Catholics away. But he seems confident that the dominant classes will be satisfied with their control of the voting booths.
Hamilton did not imagine the progress America has made in expanding voting rights. Landless adult men. Black men. Women. Eighteen-year-olds. The expansion of voting rights over time is one of the many ways that the nation has outgrown the old Constitution.
Discuss:
Have you, or anyone you know, ever had difficulty voting?
Should the national government take more or less of a role in elections?
