Editorial by the National Alliance for an Enduring Democracy

Last month, Donald Trump issued another executive order that seeks to reshape how federal elections—and the upcoming midterms in particular--are administered. This order attempts to reduce access to mail-in voting by essentially creating federal voter eligibility lists that determine who can receive a ballot. While the executive order does not outright ban mail-in voting, it would make the practice significantly more difficult for millions of Americans.

The president has no authority under the Constitution to regulate federal elections, in part for the obvious reason that the president could manipulate the rules to the advantage of either himself or his party. Under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, the states are authorized to administer federal elections, subject only to alteration by Congress.

Subscribe now

Our cross-partisan National Alliance for an Enduring Democracy includes constitutional and election experts, members of the media and military, and representatives of presidential legacies. We speak out against this executive order not because of a particular view on mail-in voting, but to underline the constitutional prohibition on the president to make rules on the conduct of federal elections.

To be clear, we do not suggest that President Trump is the only president to test the limits of executive power. Presidents of both parties have used executive action to advance policy when they felt Congress had not acted. Barack Obama did so on immigration; Joe Biden on housing and student loans. In both cases, parts of their executive orders faced judicial limits. But there is a meaningful distinction between testing the boundaries of statutory authority and issuing an order that, from its inception, ignores constitutional limits on influencing the electoral system that chooses our political leaders.

Recall that when the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution, they had just fought a revolution against a difficult king and understood the risks of concentrated authority. They specifically sought to restrain presidential authority because, as James Madison wrote, “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” The framers’ response was not theoretical but structural: divide power, require cooperation, and ensure that no single actor can unilaterally set the rules of voting that determine the expression of popular will by the people. Fundamentally, the framers authored our Constitution to emphasize institutional pluralism. They intentionally prevented the concentration of power in any one branch of our government, much less in any one person, and withheld from the president in particular all authority over our elections.

Despite the clear meaning of Article 1 of the Constitution, President Trump has engaged in a prolonged campaign to control, or at least fundamentally change, election administration. In addition to the two unconstitutional election-related executive orders, he has issued multiple directives to federal government agencies—including the Social Security Administration, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security—to assert themselves unconstitutionally into the federal election processes including the unlawful seizure of voter data from states. Further, he continues to claim that the 2020 Presidential election was invalid, contradicting a Joint Session of Congress as well as the definitive determinations of 63 courts.

Already, election experts across the nation expect that this order will not survive judicial review. Efforts to block the order launched almost immediately, including a legal challenge representing 23 states plus the District of Columbia. If this executive order is so likely to be struck down, why issue it at all? We fear the answer lies not in law, but in political gamesmanship. An order like this only creates confusion, deepens distrust, and casts doubt on the legitimacy of existing electoral systems.

In the more than two centuries since the Constitution was adopted, presidents have had to balance respect for their office with personal and political ambition. That balance is what distinguishes legitimate action from executive overreach. The president’s most solemn obligation is not to win political battles, but to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” When a president substitutes unilateral action for constitutional process, particularly in the conduct of elections, it crosses a line the framers deliberately drew. That line exists to protect the integrity of our democracy, and Americans of every political stripe must defend it.

The National Alliance for an Enduring Democracy

Jason Carter, The Carter Center, Alliance Co-chair
Mike Ford, Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation, Alliance Co-chair
Sam Donaldson, former White House correspondent
General Michael Hayden, retired Air Force four-star general and former Director of the CIA
Kerry Healey, former MA Lt. Governor and executive chair of the Forward Party
Kevin Johnson, Election Reformers Network
Michael Luttig, retired judge, United States Court of Appeals

Subscribe now

In 2026, 20 secretaries of state, including Jocelyn Benson in Michigan, will be candidates in elections they oversee, either for re-election or for other offices, including governor. Michigan Republicans have made statements on this issue that vastly overstate the potential risks of this situation. Sitting secretaries of state in many states often run for office without significant electoral problems.

That said, the appearance of a conflict of interest is a problem that election officials in any state should take seriously, especially when there are unfortunate doubts and suspicions in America about elections.

We encourage the office of the Secretary of State in Michigan to assess and publicly address the topic of potential conflicts of interest for Benson when she runs for governor and for Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie when he runs for secretary of state. This assessment should evaluate what decisions or actions either candidate will take that could create a conflict of interest, or could reasonably appear to do so and what options are available, consistent with state law, for managing any of them.

We offer this same recommendation to all secretaries of state who have filed to run for office in 2026, in keeping with guidelines published last year by Election Reformers Network (ERN).

Republican lawmakers have called for the Department of Justice to monitor Michigan elections. The Department of Justice has monitored elections in Michigan before – in Grand Rapids in 2024, for example – and has historically ensured that voting rights are respected in line with federal laws like the Voting Rights Act, Help America Vote Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. By law, Justice Department monitors are only allowed to enter polling stations if requested by the state, or by court order enforcing the voting rights. This status reflects that the Constitution gives responsibility for elections to the states and Congress, not the executive branch.

Just as today’s hyperpolarized environment raises new considerations and concerns for secretaries of state, it would be of concern for the Department of Justice to depart from historic precedent and to mobilize in response to a partisan request.

Michigan state law already allows for election procedures to be robustly monitored, including by those who have the most at stake: the competing parties. Political parties can receive credentials to monitor all key phases of the election, including important steps such as the testing of election equipment immediately before the balloting as well as the review of provisional ballots.

It is also likely that The Carter Center, with the cooperation of the Ford Presidential Foundation, will field nonpartisan observers to monitor elections in Michigan, as the Carter Center has done recently in other states.

Remedies exist to address perceptions of conflicts of interest in the administration of elections. Some state legislators are considering legislation to address this problem.

A 2020 Election Reformers Network study found that secretaries of state have taken actions to try to help themselves win elections, but this has occurred very rarely, in part because secretaries have little direct impact on most election procedures.

In Michigan, Benson has no role in some election phases that have created concerns in other states, such as oversight of ballot initiative language, certifying results and certifying ballot access.

However, most voters don’t understand election laws well enough to know the many constraints on the role of secretaries of state in elections. This is why we recommend proactive public action, including transparency planning, to address potential concerns.

We also discourage politicians from statements that risk sowing doubt unnecessarily among voters.

The initiative will train and support Michiganders to serve as nonpartisan election observers throughout the state to assess whether election laws and procedures are consistently and accurately followed. The election observers will document how those procedures are implemented, impartially and accurately reporting what they see using structured forms and standardized observation tools. Their reports will be aggregated to provide a detailed, data-driven assessment about the integrity of elections in Michigan.

“This partnership builds on a longstanding legacy of collaboration between my grandfather and President Ford, who ran against each other in 1976, but went on to cultivate a genuine friendship and collaborate on many bipartisan initiatives to benefit the American people,” said Jason Carter, chair of the Carter Center’s board of trustees. “I am proud to continue that legacy of cross-partisan collaboration with my friend, Mike Ford, and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation.”

In 1989, President Ford and President Carter co-chaired the very first international election observation mission funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, in Panama. And, in 2001, Presidents Carter and Ford served as honorary co-chairs of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform after the contentious 2000 U.S. presidential election, ultimately facilitating the passage of the Help America Vote Act.

“The Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation is proud of its partnership with The Carter Center and our mutual efforts to restore public trust in our electoral processes,” said Michael Ford, a member of the Foundation’s board of trustees and son of former President Gerald R. Ford and former First Lady Betty Ford. “A democratic system of government reflects citizen interest and engagement and also reinforces confidence in our electoral systems. Along with our good friends at The Carter Center, a relationship that reflects the deep friendship of the two former presidents, we embrace this nonpartisan effort to ensure that our elections accurately reflect the public will.”

The Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation and The Carter Center continue to collaborate on initiatives to strengthen democratic resilience in the U.S., including through joint support of the Principles for Trusted Elections project led by Team Democracy and the National Alliance for Enduring Democracy, co-chaired by Jason Carter (The Carter Center) and Mike Ford (Ford Presidential Foundation). The two organizations also support Michiganders for Civic Resilience, a network that mobilizes state leaders from across the political spectrum to defend democratic institutions and encourage peaceful dialogue, particularly in areas at risk of political violence.

The presence of FCEON election observers will help to reassure Michiganders that independent monitors are providing oversight of the process.
Individuals interested in volunteering with the Ford-Carter initiative to observe Michigan’s 2026 midterm elections are invited to submit a form of interest at the following link: cartercenter.org/observe.

The National Alliance honored the work of partner organization Team Democracy and it’s RAFT for America program, which aims to cultivate cross-partisan understanding and highlight the power of real-world collaboration across the country. The program was featured on CBS Evening News.

A Time magazine editorial penned by Jason Carter denounces Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s instruction to State Department personnel to avoid commenting on the fairness or integrity of foreign elections. The decision raised concern among international election organizations across the globe including The Carter Center.

By Jason Carter and Mike Ford

The assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump on July 13 is a stark reminder that the specter of political violence casts a long shadow over our democratic ideals. This outrageous act underscores the sad reality that those engaged in our democratic process — whether as candidates, public officials or citizens — can find themselves in situations where their safety is compromised simply by participating.

This is not just an attack on individuals; it is an assault on the principles of democracy upon which our great nation was founded.

For us, as members of presidential families, the violence evokes memories of a tumultuous time in our nation’s history. For Mike Ford, it is particularly personal to recall the frightening times when my dad, former President Gerald Ford, faced two assassination attempts in 1975. Members of the Ford family experienced a range of emotions from shock to fear to anger and finally gratitude for the good people who protected him.

Together — on behalf of both the Carter and Ford families — we urge our nation to stand together in agreement that violence not only results in tragic losses but undermines the core values that define our American democratic system. The right to safely and peacefully engage in political discourse is fundamental to our identity as a nation.

The focus must now shift back to the citizens who form the backbone of our democracy. These are the people who attend rallies, volunteer at polling stations and participate in grassroots activism. They are not mere spectators but rather active participants in shaping our collective future. When their safety is threatened, it strikes at the heart of our democracy and weakens our ability to govern ourselves effectively.

We urge our fellow Americans and leaders at all levels to reaffirm their commitment to nonviolence and civil discourse. It’s the reason we co-chair the Principles for Trusted Elections to encourage citizens to tell their public leaders and candidates to stand up for safe, nonviolent elections. We condemn any form of threats or intimidation, regardless of political beliefs or affiliation. It is incumbent upon us to foster a political environment where diverse opinions are respected and differences are settled through discussion, not aggression.

As we move forward, let us honor the sacrifices made by those who have faced violence by ensuring that their courage and dedication to democratic values are not in vain. Let us elevate the voices of ordinary citizens who embody the spirit of civic engagement and uphold the norms of civil campaigning throughout the election cycle. Let us protect our democratic institutions and ensure that America remains a beacon of freedom and opportunity for all.

We stand behind the initial unifying remarks made by President Joe Biden, former President Trump, and their parties who denounce acts of violence. With this cross-partisan leadership, we hope that the nation can move peacefully forward in the months leading up to November. Candidates, voters, poll workers and election officials should be able to have confidence that they can each fulfill their essential roles and responsibilities for the democratic process in a peaceful electoral environment.

July 13 served as a sobering reminder of our responsibilities as participants in democracy. We can all rise to the occasion and safeguard the principles that have guided our nation through its darkest hours. Together, we can build a future where political discourse is marked by respect, understanding and a steadfast commitment to the ideals that unite us as Americans.

About the authors: Carter is the grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and Ford is the son of former President Gerald Ford, a Republican. They serve as co-chairs of the National Alliance for an Enduring Democracy.

Note: This article was originally published in the The Detroit News, Aug. 14, 2024 and republished with their permission. The article was also published in The Fulcrum.

Last week the U.S. State Department took its latest step in reversing a 40-year policy of supporting free and fair elections abroad. Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed U.S. diplomats’ not to comment on the fairness, integrity, or democratic values of another country’s elections. This prohibition follows deep cuts to aid programs that funded independent election monitoring and other support for new democracies.

International election observation emerged in the 1980s and played a key role in the huge expansion of democracy that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Observation teams repeatedly demonstrated that foreign pressure could deter and protect against fraud. This development increased confidence in elections, creating new possibilities for resolving long-standing conflicts in countries like South Africa and ending communist dictatorships through much of Central and Eastern Europe.

The United States, other nations, and nongovernmental organizations like the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center, have supported observation missions in more than 100 countries. Wealthier democracies including the U.S. have opened their own elections to observers from other countries – illustrating mutual commitment to shared standards.

The Election Reformers Network grew out of deep connections to this important tradition. Many of ERN’s founders bring extensive experience in international election observation, with board members Larry Garber and Eric Bjornlund and advisor Patrick Merloe having played particularly pioneering roles. Bjornlund, author of Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy, had this response to Rubio’s announcement:

“The international election monitoring movement represents humanity’s shared aspiration for self-ruled governance, advancing our moral obligation to support democratic transitions worldwide. Secretary Rubio’s recent directive to silence American diplomats on election integrity abroad represents a fundamental abdication of U.S. leadership, precisely when authoritarian regimes worldwide are increasingly weaponizing sham elections to legitimize their rule. “

In addition to the humanitarian value of fair elections, a more democratic world is clearly in America’s self-interest. Democracies rarely fight wars with each other, produce fewer refugees, and comprise the majority of America’s key international trading partners. Supporting the development and maintenance of democratic institutions, therefore, advances the economic and security interests of the United States.

The Trump administration claims that its change in policy will respect the “national sovereignty” of other countries. However, the Declaration of Principles for International Observation (championed by The Carter Center and other leaders in the field) makes clear that “Genuine democratic elections are an expression of sovereignty, which belongs to the people of a country, the free expression of whose will provides the basis for the authority and legitimacy of government...”

The abdication of US leadership for fair elections abroad will hurt aspiring democracies and undermine a stable, norms-based international environment, echoing the profound damage to US elections caused by the President’s attacks on the legally verified 2020 results.

At Election Reformers Network, we will continue to advance our central mission of designing better U.S. election structures. But today, we embrace our connection to the global community of democracies, linking arms to create a better world. As authoritarian regimes grow more sophisticated, our global alliances and shared democratic norms are critical. Independent election monitoring and collective commitment to shared standards must not be silenced—they must be supported, now more than ever.

Kevin Johnson is the founding executive director of Election Reformers Network and a former international election observer.

This scenario-based report recognizes that American democracy stands at a fork in the road. The reelection of Donald Trump in November 2024 laid bare our country’s deep divisions, which have worsened as toxic polarization between the left and right fuels ever greater animosity and erodes our sense of shared civic purpose. Now old disputes about the results of the 2020 election have given way to weakened commitments to democratic institutions and norms overall, along with an all-out assault on the rule of law. For those of us committed to democracy, the situation seems bleak.

The magnitude of our current challenges demands a clear-eyed and rigorous assessment—both of where we stand and where we may be headed. To aid in this effort, this report employs a vector-based scenario planning model to imagine four potential futures predicated on two key features of our political system: polarization and election institutions. To the extent that polarization abates, and our elections become insulated from partisan pressures, we may outlive our current democratic recession. But if that polarization crystallizes and elections become vulnerable to partisan interference, our experiment with democracy may have reached its end. The envisioned scenarios are:

• S1: Paradise Lost: Worsening polarization coupled with partisan attacks on elections creates a society marked by deep distrust and political instability, with outbreaks of political violence possible.

• S2: Skeptics in a Safer World: Institutional reforms insulate elections from partisan pressure, but continued polarization inhibits the rebirth of civic unity and shared purpose.

• S3: Fragile Civility: Grassroots efforts lead to renewed civil society and reduced polarization, but structural flaws perpetuate incentives for leaders to mislead voters and manipulate elections.

• S4: Democracy Renewed: Decreased polarization and improved elections systems lead to a democratic renaissance, defined by a new sense of unity and healthy competition between parties that respect the basic rules of democracy.

These scenarios are not predictions of what will happen in the years ahead—they are useful models of how changes in polarization and election institutions may lead us toward better or worse outcomes. They are intended for visioning exercises to inform choices. Organizations that are active in the election space have limited human and financial resources to deploy. All confront a context of greater division and deeper constitutional threats than we have seen perhaps since the Civil War. What are the best uses of the resources they possess to help in some way in diffusing the risks we face as a nation, to keep us from getting even closer to Paradise Lost?

Nonviolent, secure, and transparent elections – followed by the American tradition of concession – are core tenets of the Principles for Trusted Elections, advanced for the last two years by our national committee. To the candidates in this week’s election, up and down the ballot, we applaud your commitment to public service. We particularly honor all those who offered concessions, including Vice President Kamala Harris.

Regardless of whether our preferred candidates won or lost, the members of our committee remain grateful for an electoral process that went smoothly, attesting to the rigorous planning and professionalism of our nation’s election officials. The high voter turnout inspires optimism because it demonstrates Americans’ passion for our national well-being as well as ongoing faith in our Constitutional democracy.

As we look ahead, this is exactly the type of broad civic engagement, based on Constitutional principles and the rule of law, that must continue if we are to preserve the democratic institutions that protect us all. We call on Americans to recognize that the demands and opportunities of citizenship do not end on election day.

To President Donald Trump and all our newly elected leaders of both parties, we urge you to protect our country’s institutions, norms, and system of Constitutional checks and balances. We ask you to consider thoughtfully perspectives different from your own. We beseech you to set aside past differences, to model civility and mutual respect, and to work across party lines to advance the possibility of a more perfect union.

Ours is the nation that invented modern democracy; the rest of the world watches us. May our nation and all its leaders be principled role models for people at home and abroad.

In gratitude for America’s peaceful transfer of power,

National Alliance for Trusted Elections

Co-Chair: Jason Carter, The Carter Center
Co-Chair: Michael Ford, Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation
Danielle Allen, Harvard University
Sam Donaldson, former ABC White House Correspondent
Michael Hayden, retired Air Force four-star general and former Director of the CIA
Margaret Hoover, Host of PBS Firing Line
Kevin Johnson, Election Reformers Network
Nick Troiano, Unite America
Kim Wyman, former Washington Secretary of State

Thank you Sam Donaldson veteran anchor of ABC News for lending your distinguished voice to upholding the Principles for Trusted Elections. Watch the video today.

Join the movement. Sign your name to endorse the principles at www.principlesfortrustedelections.org.

Principles for Trusted Elections, founded by The Carter Center and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation, is an initiative to promote transparency, honesty, and nonviolence in our elections.

Ford Leadership Forum Director Jeff Polet moderates a panel with Tammy Patrick of The Election Center, Chris Newlon of Team Democracy, and David Carroll of The Carter Center. They addressed—among other topics—the many ways that U.S. election systems are different from other modern democracies.

Jason Carter, Congressman Zach Wamp, and Ambassador Tim Roemer discuss barriers and strategies to rebuilding trust in U.S. elections, in a panel moderated by Carter Center consultant Sarah Lenti. Several topics were addressed, including money in politics, the role of the media, and political polarization. The event was part a conference at the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy, co-hosted by The Carter Center and the Ford Presidential Foundation.

The Carter Center and Team Democracy announced today a new partnership to promote transparent and trustworthy electoral processes in the United States.

This strategic alliance aims to strengthen the core values of democracy and electoral integrity defined in the Candidate Principles for Trusted Elections, a national, cross-partisan effort co-led by The Carter Center and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation and supported by over 70 organizations across the country.

The Candidate Principles for Trusted Elections promote the essential cornerstones necessary for a healthy constitutional democracy, including integrity, nonviolence, security, oversight, and the peaceful transfer of power. Through their collaboration, The Carter Center and Team Democracy will work to advance these principles, foster dialogue among candidates and stakeholders, and create a more transparent and trustworthy electoral landscape.

“We’re excited to work alongside Team Democracy,” said Jason Carter, chair of The Carter Center Board of Trustees. “This partnership underscores our commitment to ensuring that elections are conducted in a way that uphold the core values of democracy. Thanks to their work, more than 775 candidates committed to their Safe and Fair Elections Pledge in 2022, demonstrating Team Democracy’s unwavering dedication to strengthening our democratic institutions. And we’re delighted to have Team Democracy Chair General Hayden as a Candidate Principles Steering Committee member.”

“Many of us in the national security community share a profound, nonpartisan commitment to our democratic institutions and norms,” said General Michael Hayden. “Our team is thrilled to join the Candidate Principles project. Team Democracy’s 2022 Safe and Fair Election Pledge was crafted with the support of The Carter Center and other nonpartisan democracy experts, and it mirrored the essential elements of the Candidate Principles for Trusted Elections. Our hope is that every American who cherishes our constitutional democracy will endorse these principles and urge their candidates and elected representatives to do the same.”

Team Democracy co-founder, Ken Powley, applauds the new partnership as a vehicle for engaging more directly with all Americans. “Strengthening our democracy can never be exclusively a top-down initiative,” he says. “It requires the active participation of ‘we the people.’ The Candidate Principles provide an important, nonpartisan piece of common ground around which all Americans, and their elected representatives, can rally.”