Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor | Don’t dismiss Randall’s warning about elections
At a recent town hall in Gig Harbor, Rep. Emily Randall warned that this election could be our “last chance to have free and fair elections.”
To some, that sounds overstated. But dismissing it outright misses a larger point about how democracies weaken. They rarely fail all at once. Instead, they erode gradually, through pressure on institutions, shifting norms, and the steady concentration of power. Randall’s warning is less a prediction than a signal that those pressures are growing. Free elections depend on trust. Voters need to believe they can participate safely and that results will be counted fairly. When that trust weakens, even slightly, the system becomes more fragile.
Consider the growing debate over federal involvement in elections. There is no confirmed evidence of immigration agents being deployed inside polling places. However, political discussion around expanding federal presence near voting sites has increased. Legal experts warn that armed federal agents near polls could intimidate voters and would likely violate long-standing protections against interference. The issue is not just what has happened, it’s what is becoming acceptable to propose. When ideas that once seemed out of bounds enter mainstream conversation, the guardrails of democracy begin to shift.
This is why the balance of power matters. The Constitution divides authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent any one actor from gaining too much control. These checks and balances are meant to slow down power and keep it accountable. But those safeguards depend on restraint. They only work if leaders respect limits, even when doing so restricts their own influence.
This is where concerns about leadership come into focus. Efforts to expand executive influence over elections — or to frame oversight as obstruction —raise questions about whether that balance is being tested. What may be presented as a push for control can also be seen as an attempt to keep the reins of government concentrated.
President Donald Trump’s approach to elections illustrates this tension. His repeated claims of widespread fraud have been reviewed in courts, which generally found no evidence of fraud at a level capable of changing national outcomes. Regardless of intent, those claims have contributed to public skepticism about election legitimacy.
And that skepticism has consequences. A democracy cannot function well if large portions of the public no longer trust its results. Over time, doubt itself can weaken the system as much as any specific policy. Randall’s warning should be understood in that context. It reflects concern that the norms supporting elections — fair access, decentralized control, and acceptance of outcomes — are under strain. None of this means American elections are currently failing. The system remains functioning and resilient. But resilience is not guaranteed. It depends on active participation and continued respect for institutional limits.
The balance of power is not self-sustaining. It requires constant attention from leaders and citizens alike. When warning signs appear, it is not alarmist to take them seriously; it is responsible. Democracy doesn’t collapse overnight. It changes slowly, often in ways that are only clear in hindsight. The challenge is to remain attentive while the system still works, to protect it before those changes become irreversible.
Taking Randall’s message seriously is not about fear. It is about vigilance — and the recognition that preserving democratic institutions is an ongoing responsibility.
Robert MacFann
Tacoma