Local versus Federal Voter Regulations/Management

Looking at the current policy proposals and programs out there, it looks like there are two main routes - using the feds to set out national guidelines through the NIST and legislation like CEVA, or alternately encouraging states to adopt model legislation that would accomplish the same based on NIST standards also - which are essentially voluntary guidelines regarding best practices, but nothing making them mandatory.

CEVA does try to mandate national standards in regards to voting eligibility, election audits, registration requirements, and other areas, but nothing as to one national ballot or election system for federal elections as far as I can tell. I havent seen any exact proposals for that either. I would not mind it as long as the feds paid for it. But while I would not mind waiting in two lines to vote in two separate elections - federal and state/local, I can imagine many others would and complain about the cost of maintaining separate systems - but such duplication occurs all the time in other areas - especially in regards to taxes. Tax returns are separate, so why not ballots also - which are far simpler than tax returns.

If a single national ballot were established as a rule, then states could have the choice of adopting the national standard for their local stuff (assuming the NIST standards were accepted as best practices this shouldn’t offer any conflict) or of maintaining their own. It’d be their choice to have one line or two, but if they choose two it’s on them so they can’t really bitch. That alone would probably negate the need to regulate local elections, just having a national standard that they are free to use would probably take care of itself.

This is quite relevant. The Constitution does not include anything more about the method of voting because it has given that authority to the individual states. Hence the hodge-podge of voting methods.

No. The absence of comment in the Constitution does not mean it was intended to be the states purview. It simply means that it doesn’t comment on it.

If the power is not mentioned in the Constitution then the Federal Government does not have that power and, by default, it belongs to the several states.

Um…

Um, what? The Constitution ennumerates the powers reserved to the Federal Government. What is not mentioned is by default reserved to the several states. That what I said and that’s what it is.

This is not correct. Anything not mentioned in the Constitution is, in effect, reserved to the several States.

Half correct. It is reserved to the states or to the people:

I don’t think there would be a nationwide referendum of the people on this or any other matter, but Amendment X makes it clear that the Constitution doesn’t reserve powers not mentioned in it to the states only.

ETA: Now there’s a question–could the people exercise their Tenth Amendment right on this matter through their elected representatives in the House, who are supposed to represent the People? Gfactor? Northern Piper?

I know the wording of the Constitution well but in the context of this discussion it seemed to me what I cited was the relevant part to this discussion. I forgot that this is nitpickers-R-us.

Um, yeah…oops.
It was meant to be directed toward others that argued that the states have the sole authority to determine how elections are held when the Constitution clearly gives Congress some say in the manner. Reviewing the thread, I see you were not one of those making that argument. My apologies.