Back When Obama Said States Are Just “Agents” Of The President

“We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting. All others gave it up because of the massive voter fraud encountered. We will begin this effort, which will be strongly opposed by the Republicans because they cheat, by signing an executive order to help bring honesty to the Midterm Elections. Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them.” – Barack Obama sometime in 2014… probably.

When Barack Obama declared that states are “merely an agent for the Federal Government” when counting votes, and that he would sign an executive order to axe mail ballots and voting machines before the 2014 midterms, constitutional conservatives collectively had their heads explode. I remember the day clearly as I had to scrape members of the Cherokee County GOP’s executive committee off the ceiling.

“Oh Scot,” I heard my progressive friends say, “You think everything Obama does is wrong. You just have Obama Derangement Syndrome.” But there is so much wrong with Obama’s take on executive power, the role of the President, and the naked attack on the role of our states that I am compelled to respond in defense of our constitutional system. So let’s get into all the ways conservatives should be alarmed by what Obama said.

Let’s start with the most egregious Obama claim: “they must do what the federal government, as represented by the president, tells them.” I know Obama doesn’t have much respect for the Constitution, but good lord, man, talk about flipping federalism on its head. The Constitution gives states the primary role in running elections as the Elections Clause puts it, the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections with state legislatures, subject to change only by Congress through law. For presidential elections, Article II says each state appoints electors in the manner its legislature directs. None of that authority belongs to the president. None. Contrary to what Mr. Obama might think of his powers, he simply did not have this authority.

The president is not the national hall monitor for fifty states. Congress writes laws under Article I, the president enforces them under Article II, and courts swat anyone who forgets the difference. Executive orders do not erase state election codes or conscript secretaries of state. Federalism is not a suggestion, Mr. Obama. States run elections unless Congress changes the rules by statute, not by a pen and a podium. Treating states like White House interns turns the Constitution into nothing more than a prop. If your plan to “fix” elections starts with “the president tells them,” your plan is wrong because our Constitution does not allow for that. Instead, try passing a bill. Persuade voters. Do the work.

Another point about Obama’s statement is that it collides with the anti-commandeering rule. Since before the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that Washington cannot order states to spend their resources to carry out federal directives. I was part of a group of conservative lawmakers who used the anti-commandeering doctrine to justify not adopting Obamacare in Georgia. There are several cases to back up that doctrine.

The first major case came in 1842 with Prigg v. Pennsylvania, a case about the Fugitive Slave Act. In Prigg, Justice Story held that while federal law preempted a conflicting Pennsylvania statute, state officers were not obligated to enforce the federal scheme. He wrote that “state magistrates may, if they choose, exercise that authority, unless prohibited by state legislation.” Later cases formalized this principle. In New York v. United States (1992), the Court rejected federal commands to state legislatures. In Printz v. United States (1997), it barred conscripting state executive officers for federal tasks. In Murphy v. NCAA (2018), it reaffirmed that the federal government cannot control how states legislate.

We all know Obama loves to overstate executive power but executive orders direct federal agencies, not state governments. The leading case on this issue, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, limits unilateral presidential action when it conflicts with or bypasses Congress. Treating states as subordinates of the White House is a serious expansion of the executive and would land in the weakest category of presidential authority. Courts would not and should not tolerate it and neither should constitutional conservatives.

Constitutional conservatives believe the presidency is one branch, not a national elections boss. Federalism disperses power on purpose with states writing the rules within constitutional bounds, Congress legislating by statute, and courts police the lines. A claim that states “must do what the president tells them” ignores the text, the structure, and the case law that keep the executive in its lane.

If any president said this, conservatives should say no. The Constitution is clear about who runs elections and it is not the Oval Office.

Now that we have the really ugly part out of the way, let’s turn to the false claims used to justify this supposed plan. The claim about voting machines misunderstands the federal role because the U.S. Election Assistance Commission sets voluntary voting-system guidelines and runs a certification program. States decide what to buy and how to use it under state law and a president cannot ban machines nationwide by fiat. Nor should they.

The “only country with mail voting” line is fiction. Many democracies use postal voting. Germany allows no-excuse postal ballots. Switzerland relies on mail voting extensively. So do Iceland, Luxembourg, Poland, the United Kingdom, South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, just to name a few. The world did not abandon mail ballots.

Reality Check

Now for the reveal. Those words at the top of this post were not written by Barack Obama. They were posted today by Donald Trump, who also said states “must do what the Federal Government” tells them in elections and that he would sign an executive order to bring “honesty” to the 2026 midterms.

So here is my question for readers. If you bristled when you thought Obama said it, do you still bristle now that you know Trump did? Should our view of federalism hinge on the jersey the speaker wears, or on the text and structure of the Constitution that bind all presidents?

My answer is simple. Federalism is not a mood. The Constitution does not deputize the President as national elections czar. The states run elections under their laws, Congress can legislate within constitutional limits, and courts settle our disputes. That is true whether it is Barack Obama or Donald Trump in the Oval Office, and conservatives should fight to preserve that separation of powers.

Because what would have happened had it actually been Obama? And what if Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or Kamala Harris tried something like this if they became president one day?

So what do you think? Tell me in the comments whether it matters who said it, and why.

One last thought… There are somethings I support President Trump on and there are things I do not. I have intentionally attempted to reserve my criticism of him in his second term for tariffs and this certainly departs from that. Our system of laws, checks and balances, and separation of powers is a complex and beautiful system designed to keep one person from amassing a tyrannical amount of authority. Even if you love President Trump, surely you recognize that one day he will not be President anymore. So preserve that system to protect all of us in the future. Please.

“I’ve got a pen and a phone… whenever I can take steps without legislation… I will.” Definitely Barack Obama – 2014