It has already been a busy year, and conversations about the upcoming midterm elections are intensifying. Last week, proposals to nationalize U.S. elections entered the public debate.

That suggestion prompted swift, bipartisan concern in Nevada—not as a partisan response, but as a defense of established constitutional structure and election law.

Under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, states are granted explicit authority to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections.” While Congress may set certain federal parameters, the administration of elections has historically—and intentionally—remained a state responsibility. This decentralized system is designed to prevent the concentration of power and to preserve public trust through local control and accountability.

Nevada has frequently been drawn into national election debates, particularly because the state does not require voter identification and is currently engaged in litigation after Nevada sued the Trump Administration over demands for personal voter information. These policy choices and legal disputes, however, exist squarely within Nevada’s constitutional authority.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, the state’s chief elections officer, reaffirmed this legal framework:

“The Constitution makes it clear: elections are run by the states. The President doesn’t have the power to change how our elections are conducted, and what he’s suggesting is unconstitutional.”

That position was reinforced across party lines. Former Republican Governor Brian Sandoval and Democratic Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, serving as co-chairs of the Democracy Defense Project, emphasized that election integrity depends on respecting constitutional roles rather than expanding executive authority.

Perkins cautioned that undermining state control introduces unnecessary risk to democratic stability, while Sandoval underscored a core principle of federalism:

“Nevada’s elections should be handled in Nevada, by Nevadans.”

At a time when confidence in democratic institutions is under strain, Nevada’s bipartisan response highlights a critical policy reality: election administration is not a partisan issue, but a constitutional one. Preserving state authority, respecting institutional boundaries, and maintaining transparent, locally administered elections remain essential to safeguarding free and fair elections.