An internal struggle within the state apparatus is unfolding as Democratic-led states enact legislation to shield electoral processes from federal interference, while the Trump administration continues efforts to restrict voting access, particularly targeting marginalized groups. This conflict over the mechanics of bourgeois democracy reveals the state’s primary function: the protection of accumulated wealth and the suppression of organized challenges to the existing distribution of power.
Five Democratic-led states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, and Washington state—have recently passed laws designed to safeguard their November midterm elections against potential interference from the Trump administration and its allies. These legislative efforts are a direct response to President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about voting fraud and his administration’s moves to reshape how voting is conducted.
Federal Efforts to Restrict the Franchise
Since returning to the White House last year, President Trump has repeatedly attempted to unilaterally change election procedures, despite his efforts faltering in Congress. He has signed executive orders aimed at cracking down on mail-in voting, which he has baselessly characterized as rife with fraud. The administration also seized records related to the 2020 election from the largest counties in Georgia and Arizona. Furthermore, the Department of Justice is engaged in court battles to gain access to multiple states’ voter rolls, seeking proof of “ineligible individuals, including noncitizens,” casting ballots.
When questioned last month about deploying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers or National Guard troops to polling places, Trump stated he would do “anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.” Other administration officials have not publicly ruled out this possibility. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson affirmed that Trump “is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.”
The Trump administration is also backing a push by the Republican National Committee before the US Supreme Court to halt the counting of ballots in federal elections that arrive after Election Day. Maryland, one of 14 states plus the District of Columbia that counts mail ballots received after Election Day, has a 10-day grace period for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day.
State Defenses of the Electoral Mechanism
In response to these federal actions, Democratic-led states have moved to solidify their control over election processes. Maryland state Sen. Cynthia Kagan, a Democrat, co-sponsored a new law aimed at maintaining the state’s deadline for counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. Kagan stated, “It’s infuriating that the Trump administration believes they can ignore the Constitution of the United States and try to take over our elections.”
Connecticut’s new law, effective 11 days from today, largely prohibits law enforcement from being within 250 feet of a polling location, ballot dropbox, or vote-counting site without the permission of election officials. State Rep. Matt Blumenthal, a Democrat and lead sponsor, noted that the law also requires municipal or election officials receiving a subpoena or warrant to notify the attorney general and secretary of state within 36 hours. This aims to provide state officials an opportunity to intervene in court before ballots or machines are seized, as seen in the FBI’s seizure of 2020 election records in Fulton County, Georgia, about 5 months ago, which was justified by claims from 2020 election deniers.
California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation last month that prohibits election officials from providing unauthorized access to voter rolls or voting machines without a court order. It also criminalizes knowingly taking voted ballots from election officials without a valid warrant. Newsom described the law as necessary “to address the legitimate anxiety” about the administration’s moves, referencing the high-profile seizure of 650,000 ballots from Riverside County by Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco for a “fact-finding mission” into potential fraud.
In Colorado, a law signed earlier this month by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis prohibits interference with voting within a 100-foot buffer zone around ballot drop boxes and polling locations. It also grants the governor, with advisory committee input, the power to declare an emergency to allow elections to proceed in the event of disruption. Washington state enacted a law 3 months ago, making it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to disclose personal information from the voter registration file to non-officials without the secretary of state’s permission.
The State's Role in Maintaining Order
These state actions, while framed as protecting “election integrity,” primarily function to manage internal contradictions within the state apparatus and preserve the existing electoral system, rather than fundamentally altering the distribution of power. Republican lawmakers, such as California state Sen. Tony Strickland, argue that Democrats are interfering with legitimate federal scrutiny of elections, expecting legal challenges based on the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Strickland questioned, “What do you have to hide?”
Legal experts acknowledge the constitutional basis for states running elections. Richard Pildes, co-director of the Democracy Project at New York University’s Law School, noted that laws creating criminal penalties for local officials who share sensitive data may survive challenges because they regulate state officials, not federal actions. Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor, highlighted that while legal skirmishes between states and the federal government over election rules are not new, the current situation is distinct because “the president is trying to act outside federal law and his powers.” Levitt concluded that states are ultimately in charge of the process and “don’t have to listen” to presidential orders. This ongoing struggle between federal and state authorities underscores the state’s role in managing the mechanisms that legitimize the current economic order, rather than challenging its foundations. The focus remains on procedural management, not the empowerment of the working class or the economically dispossessed.