OKLAHOMA CITY — Vermont Gov. Phil Scott defended mail-in ballots and state-run elections during a conversation with North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein at the National Governors Association meeting in Oklahoma City on July 31, 2026. Scott rejected President Donald Trump’s calls for Republicans to nationalize elections and limit options for mail-in voting.

Scott grounded his defense of the current system in constitutional principles, citing the division of power between state and federal authorities. "I go back to the 10th Amendment, noting that it’s clear on the role of the states in terms of elections. So I think that we should follow that and we’re closer to the people," Scott said. He emphasized that state officials possess a direct understanding of local needs that distant federal administrators lack.

"We’re closer to our people and we know what’s right and what’s wrong, and we can control the elections," Scott said. He expressed hope that members of both major political parties would support maintaining state authority over ballot administration rather than ceding it to Washington. "I would hope that all, if not the majority, of Democrats would agree that this is ours, not the federal government’s," he added.

The Vermont governor, who has held the office since 2017, argued that the states predate the federal union and formed the national government, not the other way around. "We were here before the federal government was, the states were, and so we formed the government. Now they’re getting bloated, and we need to protect our rights," he said. The office of Governor of Vermont was established in 1790, and the governor serves as the head of state and of government of the U.S. state of Vermont.

Scott pointed to practical outcomes in his own state to counter arguments that mail-in voting undermines electoral integrity or partisan interests. He stated that mail-in ballots are popular with Republicans in Vermont. According to Scott, mail-in voting has increased voter participation among Republicans in Vermont and boosted GOP representation in the state Legislature.

President Donald Trump has opposed mail-in voting for years, claiming it is rife with fraud and abuse. Despite these public positions, Trump voted by mail in a Florida special election earlier in 2026. Earlier in 2026, Trump said in a podcast interview that Republicans should aim to nationalize voting.

The president has sought to pass the SAVE America Act, a federal legislation to overhaul election administration. The SAVE America Act would impose additional requirements for citizens before registering to vote and casting a ballot.

The legislative effort has not advanced in the federal legislature. The SAVE America Act has stalled in Congress. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated in a statement that Trump is committed to ensuring Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections.

Jackson stated that Trump will continue urging Congress to pass the SAVE America Act. For historical context on federal election-related legislation, the State and Local Spending Will Help Save America Act of 2010 was sponsored by Rep. Kucinich, Dennis J. [D-OH-10] and referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The Trump administration defended an executive order in federal courts that aimed to create federal lists of voters and require mail-in ballots be sent only to voters on those lists. A federal judge blocked the executive order last month, ruling it unconstitutional for the federal government to intervene in the administration of state elections. Trump has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, asking for permission to impose the executive order as soon as August 2026.

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein joined Scott in opposing the federal push, describing the president's rhetoric as harmful to democratic institutions. Stein said Trump’s repeated disparagement of mail-in voting and the current election system is immensely damaging to the health of democracy. Vermont and North Carolina have signed onto a lawsuit opposing the Trump administration’s decision to condition the release of some state funds for emergency preparedness on compliance with the president’s demands for election administration reforms.

Stein framed the issue as one of proper disaster response hierarchy rather than partisan politics. "When a disaster strikes, our objective, whether it’s local government, state government or federal government, must be to do everything in our power to save life and to help people get their lives back together," Stein said. He argued that attaching political conditions to emergency aid violates this principle. "So the notion that you would condition that on a state agreeing to something is offensive," he said.

Stein outlined his vision for the appropriate role of federal agencies in crisis management. "When you think about something like a disaster, it should be locally driven, state managed and federally supported. And so, the resources are where it’s really critical that the federal government step up," he said.

He noted that some proposed reforms to the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be a step in the right direction. He stated that the FEMA Review Council initially discussed eliminating FEMA altogether, which he opposed. He added that the FEMA Review Council is now heading toward providing more flexibility and quicker money to states.

The two governors also addressed the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda and called for Congress to pass lasting immigration reform. Scott advocated for expanding legal pathways for entry into the country. "We need more immigration from my standpoint. Legal immigration. There’s got to be a pathway to do that," he said.

He suggested that bipartisan agreement is possible if legislators prioritize governance over campaigning. He stated that immigration reform could happen if lawmakers forget about partisanship and elections. "Forget about the next election. Just do the right thing, and nine times out of 10, that’s what works," he said.

Stein agreed with Scott, stating that the immigration system does not work well. He placed the blame for the stagnation on legislative inaction driven by political maneuvering. "Congress refuses to act. They are too happy to score political points rather than to address a real problem," he said.

The confrontation between state governors and the White House shows a continuing dispute over the constitutional allocation of power regarding election administration. By conditioning emergency preparedness funds on compliance with election reforms, the Trump administration has linked disaster relief to voting policy, a move that Vermont and North Carolina challenge in federal court. The legal battle follows a recent judicial ruling that deemed federal intervention in state election administration unconstitutional, though the Supreme Court may yet review the matter.

The debate occurs against a backdrop of stalled federal legislation, including the SAVE America Act, which seeks to impose new voter registration and ballot-casting requirements. While the president advocates for nationalized standards to ensure confidence in elections, governors like Scott and Stein argue that state-controlled systems better serve local populations and maintain democratic health. The outcome of these legal and legislative efforts will determine whether election administration remains primarily a state responsibility or shifts toward federal oversight.

Why It Matters

The dispute determines whether election administration remains under state control or shifts to federal authority, a conflict currently pending before the Supreme Court. Governors argue that local management better serves voters, citing evidence that mail-in ballots have increased Republican participation and legislative representation in Vermont. The outcome will establish a precedent for how deeply the federal government can intervene in voting methods and registration requirements across all states.