For decades, conservatives have warned Americans about the dangers of big government: too much federal power, too many government databases, too much Washington interference in matters better left to the states.
Read more Celine Dion thrills fans with emotional comeback concert after overcoming rare illness
Now a Republican administration is pushing for greater federal involvement in elections — including new restrictions on mail voting. It’s hard not to wonder: Where are those conservatives now?
The Republican Party’s own platform promises to end the “weaponization of government.” Limiting Washington’s power in favor of the states has long been a conservative principle.
But when it comes to voting, the federal government is moving in the opposite direction.
The administration has sought state voter information and expanded the use of federal databases to verify citizenship and eligibility. That comes after years of audits, recounts, investigations and litigation failed to establish widespread or outcome-changing fraud in the 2020 election. Yet the administration is pursuing even greater federal involvement, including efforts to create and link enormous government databases.
Consider what happens when those databases are matched. I’ve lived in New Jersey, Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I currently live and vote in Florida. Over the years, I have appeared in records as Anne Broderick, Anne E. Broderick, Anne Broderick Botteri, Anne B. Botteri and Anne Botteri, at multiple addresses.
There is nothing suspicious about that. Millions of Americans change names, marry, divorce, use middle names inconsistently and move.
How confident should I be that a massive federal matching system will correctly reconcile those variations and distinguish an ordinary life history from something warranting scrutiny of my eligibility?
The federal reach doesn’t stop there.
The administration is fighting in court for new mail-ballot rules. Unique barcodes can improve ballot tracking, but the proposal goes further: states would have to provide USPS with the name and address of each mail-ballot recipient and the unique barcodes assigned to that voter’s outgoing and return envelopes. USPS would maintain those records, and noncompliant ballot mail could be denied delivery.
A federal district court found that implementing the requirements in time for November would be “practically impossible” for the states challenging them.
So the question isn’t whether tracking ballots is useful. It’s whether doing so requires another federal repository of voter-specific information — with ballot delivery potentially dependent on compliance.
Read more Rays cap a good weekend with sweep-completing win over Astros
If compliance is “practically impossible,” how many legitimate mail ballots could go uncounted?
In close races, enough uncounted ballots could affect an election.
Democratic voters currently use mail ballots at higher rates than Republicans. When an administration devotes substantial federal resources to restricting a voting method used more heavily by its political opponents, questions about the timing and consequences are reasonable.
Then there is the cost.
Federal taxpayers are paying to develop, implement and defend new systems and regulations. Taxpayers in states challenging those changes are simultaneously paying their state governments to fight the federal government in court.
A lot of public money is being spent on both sides of an escalating battle over a problem that years of investigations have not shown to be widespread enough to change election outcomes. Taxpayers are entitled to ask whether the expense and disruption are proportionate to the demonstrated threat — and what is driving such an expansive response.
The sheer complexity is exhausting. With databases, regulations, court cases and changes to voting procedures, it is difficult for most Americans to follow every piece.
“Election integrity” has become a catchall phrase for much of this — an appealing shorthand that few Americans would question. Who doesn’t support accurate voter rolls and safeguards against fraud? But agreement with the goal shouldn’t keep us from examining the individual policies being pursued in its name — or what they are costing us.
Conservatives have long warned about centralized federal power, government databases and Washington encroachment on state authority. Those principles shouldn’t depend on which party controls the White House.
And perhaps most important: Are we comfortable giving this power not simply to this president, but to every president who comes after him?
Anne Botteri is a writer and communications consultant whose career has spanned higher education, government, politics and public affairs.
Read more Pictures: 56 Space Coast launches and counting in 2026