Trump wants nationalized elections for his benefit. That’s not how this works.
Just days after the Jan. 28 FBI raid on the Fulton County elections warehouse to investigate whether 300,000-plus ballots were fraudulently cast in the 2020 election, a podcast interview aired of President Donald Trump demanding the U.S. nationalize elections.
Trump lost that election to former President Joe Biden, but he continues to insist falsely that he was robbed.
His nationalization position emerges just five years after Republicans rebuffed a Democratic bill proposing new federal election standards because they were concerned that it eroded the power of states.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was named in honor of the late civil rights icon and Georgia U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-District 5 (Atlanta), who worked until his death in 2020 to ensure equal voting rights for all citizens.
Lewis fretted that Supreme Court decisions, such as the 2013 Shelby v. Holder ruling, which invalidated a portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, led to states passing new voting laws that he and other voting rights advocates believed created barriers to the franchise.
Let’s get one thing straight: The intentions of Trump and Lewis are markedly different.
Lewis wanted states to respect the rights of all voters to cast the ballot of their choice. Trump, on the other hand, is not interested in free and fair elections. He just wants an electoral system that will ensure victory for him and his allies only.
Conservatives called John Lewis Act ‘liberal’ ‘power grab’
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act 61 years ago precisely to undo decades of disenfranchisement, particularly of Black citizens, with literacy tests, poll taxes and, in some cases, blatant intimidation and violence.
The act created a mechanism for federal oversight in communities that had a history of discrimination, mainly in the South.
In 2021, the then-Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 219-212, approved on party lines the John Lewis Act to create national standards to ensure fairness across the board. The U.S. Senate never voted on the bill.
Republican critics balked at the affront to states’ authority over elections. Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, the author of Project 2025, called the bill “Pelosi’s Election Power Grab,” after House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi: “ … Liberals will use the power of the federal government to overturn voter ID laws and prevent states from ensuring the integrity of their own elections.”
Now, back in the White House, Trump sees no need to stay true to ideology.
“The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over,’” Trump told podcast host and former Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino in an episode released Monday. “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
The president, who did not complain about legitimately winning the 2024 election, told Bongino, “You’re going to see some interesting things come out,” related to the FBI raid in the Atlanta area.
This kind of information manipulation and deception is another form of disfranchisement. Rather than respect the process, he will manufacture a result.
AJC contributor Erick Erickson hit the nail on the head when he wrote in a Feb. 3 column: “They will not stop until they can prove it, even if it must be engineered and spun into being.”
Georgia’s Raffensperger offers sage counsel to move on
The John Lewis Act was refiled in 2025, but with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, the legislation has not advanced since last year.
However, Trump’s remarks create an opportunity for members of Congress to revisit the conversation.
The split-party House vote of 2021 shows there’s a gap in how Republicans and Democrats think about how elections should be run. Can they find a way to balance the interests of access and security?
Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has touted Georgia’s elections as a model for increasing accountability and reducing fraud and is urging residents to “look ahead.”
Raffensperger, who is running for governor in 2026, is a pariah to Trump because he refused to bend to the president’s will and “find” him enough votes to win Georgia in 2020. However, he is no liberal and was scorched by Democrats for pushing election law changes in 2021 that they claimed created more barriers to voting.
In response to the FBI raid, Raffensperger said: “The path forward is through national reform, not repetition of old arguments that don’t add up. I urge lawmakers to focus on strengthening state administration of elections rather than rehashing the same outdated claims or worse — moving to federalize a core function of state government.”
He is right on the mark, particularly on his last point.
Upcoming SCOTUS ruling could make election reform more vital
U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to his credit, told reporters he rejected Trump’s call to nationalize elections.
“I’m supportive of only citizens voting and showing ID at polling places. I think that makes sense. … But I’m not in favor of federalizing elections, no. I think that’s a constitutional issue,” he said.
In 2021, Georgia’s 14-member congressional delegation in the House split on party lines on the John Lewis Act.
Of the 10 who are still in office today, here’s how they voted in 2021:
- Rep. Rick Allen, R-District 12 — No
- Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-District 2 — Yes
- Rep. Buddy Carter, R-District 1 — No
- Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-District 9 — No
- Rep. Hank Johnson, D-District 4 — Yes
- Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-District 11 — No
- Rep. Lucy McBath, D-District 6 — Yes
- Rep. Austin Scott, R-District 8 — No
- Rep. David Scott, D-District 13 — Yes
- Rep. Nikema Williams, D-District 5 — Yes
By the way, Carter is now running in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate.
In its 2025-2026 term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a new challenge to the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais. The ruling could affect another portion of the act, this one that prohibits rules or laws that discriminate against voters on the basis of race, color or primary language spoken.
A ruling is expected by this summer.
That decision could potentially make voting reform even more important.
Any reform should seek to benefit all citizens, regardless of political affiliation, not just one man.
David Plazas is the AJC’s opinion editor. Email him at david.plazas@ajc.com.
About the Author
David Plazas joined the AJC as opinion editor in 2025. His goal is to create the ultimate platform for conversations, debates and idea exchanges in the South. He spent 25 years at the USA TODAY Company working his way from reporter at The News-Press in Fort Myers, Florida, to statewide opinion and engagement editor at The Tennessean in Nashville.
