INTERVIEW: My Debate With a CATO Scholar on the MEGA Act

Election integrity is taking center stage once again, with two Republican bills being introduced. There's the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require a photo ID to vote and proof of citizenship to register. There’s also the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, a more comprehensive bill that would do what the SAVE Act does, but also would impose stricter routine maintenance of voter rolls, ensure mail-in ballots are received by the close of polls on Election Day, and require the use of auditable paper ballots. The bill also bans ballot harvesting, ranked-choice voting, and universal vote-by-mail systems.

I recently spoke with Stephen Richer, a scholar at the Cato Institute and former Maricopa County Recorder, who has serious concerns about the MEGA Act — which I previously called the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes. According to Richer, the legislation erodes state control over election laws. I disagree, and thought it would be a good idea to debate the issue.

In our discussion, I pointed out that the Constitution gives Congress clear constitutional authority to regulate federal elections and that the current patchwork of state laws has created exactly the kind of chaos that undermines public confidence in our elections, which merits congressional action. When I challenged Richer on whether baseline federal safeguards like Voter ID and citizenship verification cross some sacred line, he seemed to concede my point.

“I agree it's reasonable to set baseline standards at the federal government level, including, perhaps, a requirement that voters in federal elections provide documented proof of citizenship upon registration." However, he argued that “when you start getting into the more nitty-gritty mechanics of election administration, those details are best left to the states,” due to the unique circumstances of various states, such as larger western states supporting mail-in voting due to larger geographic distances.

For our VIPs: No, Republicans Aren’t Trying to Nationalize Elections

Richer insists that we already have “baseline federal laws” that work well enough and notes that 98% of voters use paper ballots. While that may be true, if the current system works so well, why are federal elections regularly mired in controversy, with results dragging on for days in some states while others finish counting the same night? Something is clearly wrong and needs fixing. Florida had 95% of its results within 24 hours in 2020, but Arizona and Nevada took days. From where I sit, there’s no excuse for that.

When I pushed him on whether inconsistent state standards undermine equal treatment and public confidence, Richer had to concede the point. "Your point is well-taken, and I do think it has, as you note, created confidence challenges," he admitted. He acknowledged that nationalized news coverage has made voters aware of wildly different practices across states, creating confusion when "people see something in Oregon that isn't permitted in Georgia." He even said, "I agree to an extent with the point."

Then there’s the fact that many MEGA Act provisions are already standard practice in numerous states. Requiring widely accepted safeguards nationwide isn't a "federal takeover"—it's establishing a minimum floor. When I asked how the uniform adoption of these standards erodes state authority, Richer pointed to provisions such as the ban on ranked-choice voting, which he argues has "nothing to do with safeguarding elections."

Perhaps not, but it’s widely believed that ranked-choice voting is extremely undemocratic. It can produce outcomes where the candidate with the most first‑choice support doesn’t win, effectively rigging the system in favor of less-popular candidates or incumbents. Just look at Alaska.

Still, the core provisions—voter ID, citizenship verification, paper ballots, election-day deadlines—are exactly the kind of commonsense measures that protect integrity without micromanaging state operations.

The most revealing moment of our conversation came when discussing whether Congress should step in if lax procedures in one state cast doubt on the entire system. Richer compared this to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. But here's the difference: We're not talking about preventing states from implementing their own laws or election procedures. We're talking about setting minimum standards that every state must meet for federal elections.

But, Richer argued, “If your federal right to vote freely and fairly is violated, you can absolutely sue.” That’s all fine and good, but litigation after the fact is hardly preferable to preventing problems upfront.

The real test came when I contrasted the MEGA Act with Democrats' 2021 push for sweeping federal legislation that would have weakened voter ID, expanded mail-in voting without safeguards, and overridden state election laws—a true federal takeover of our elections if there ever was one. Republicans are proposing the opposite: requiring photo ID, verifying citizenship, tightening voter rolls, banning ballot harvesting, and ensuring ballots are counted on Election Day. These are straightforward integrity measures, not partisan power grabs.

Richer's response was telling. "As a matter of policy preference, I probably support more in MEGA than was in the HR1 For The People," he admitted. So even a vocal critic of federal involvement in elections acknowledges that the GOP approach is superior to the Democrats’ proposal.

"As a matter of federalism, I looked/look at both with great suspicion," Richer said. “And yes, there is of course a certain hypocrisy to some Dems now yelling ‘this should be left to the states!’ But hypocrisy is nothing new in politics.”

Personally, I think one can support the provisions of the MEGA Act and support federalism at the same time. The baseline federal standards under the MEGA Act are reasonable, popular, and, unfortunately, necessary to secure our elections. Meanwhile, the existing patchwork approach only fuels a recurring crisis of confidence that never seems to end.

Is the MEGA Act perfect? I wouldn’t say that. But it's exactly the kind of reform we need to restore confidence in federal elections. I don’t want a federal takeover of elections, but I do believe we need commonsense national standards to ensure the integrity of the vote.

Want to support fearless journalism that exposes the Left and tells the stories the media won’t? PJ Media delivers the truth and holds the powerful accountable. Become a VIP member today—your support fuels our mission and unlocks exclusive content, podcasts, an ad-free experience, and more.

Use code FIGHT for 60% off. It's a great time to join our movement. Join now and stand for America-first journalism!