This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the signs of democratic backsliding are everywhere across the U.S. political landscape. Troubling signs include the Trump administration's demand for state voter roll data and interference with mail-in voting, the pressure it applied to Georgia election officials to reverse Joe Biden's victory in that state in the 2020 election and, of course, extreme partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts.
These examples illustrate the dual role federalism plays in American democracy, according to Michael Dichio, an associate professor of political science at the University of Utah whose research examines the role of judicial institutions in U.S. politics. The principles of federalism that undergird our political system are intended to balance the prerogatives of the states with those of a national government. Dichio and his co-author Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo of Christopher Newport University in Virginia argue in a new paper that federalism can either undermine or protect democracy, depending on the independence of democratic institutions, the strength of national party coalitions and other factors.
Their article appears in the journal Publius under the title "The State of American Federalism 2025–2026: Federalism's Dual Role in Democratic Backsliding." They found federalism protects democracy under the following conditions: • Autocratic threats originate from national leaders. • Opposition parties or independent factions control sufficient subnational jurisdictions. • Those jurisdictions retain robust institutional authority over elections, courts and coercive capacity. Conversely, federalism facilitates backsliding under these conditions: • National party coalitions with antidemocratic incentives capture state governments. • Nationalized party networks coordinate antidemocratic policies across states. • Alternative institutional venues within captured states, such as elected judges and direct democracy, are absent, weakened or themselves subject to capture. What follows is a conversation with Dichio, edited for length and clarity.
We are making an argument that the relationship federalism has with democratic backsliding is conditional and bidirectional, and it depends on several different mechanisms. In some ways, federalism really is agnostic to democracy's perpetuation. It can inhibit democracy and contribute to its backsliding and erosion and demise, or it can shore up democracy and protect it from actors and other entities that might want to see it eroded in some sort of way.
Federalism essentially creates stumbling blocks for would-be autocrats, so it can protect democracy by multiplying veto points by devolving power from the federal government to subnational units. There are spheres of sovereignty that help enable this pushback through these veto points. In practice, it means that an aggrandizer of power needs to capture more choke points.
When the threat comes from national leaders, it protects best when the opposition controls enough states, and those subnational units have genuine sovereign authority over elections, courts and law enforcement and those veto points. States resist through litigation by attorneys general, through officials who refuse to cooperate and through statewide venues like elected courts and ballot initiatives that can't be gerrymandered at the state level. Discover the latest in science, tech, and space with over 100,000 subscribers who rely on Phys.org for daily insights. d research that matter—daily or weekly.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
