Republicanism, Reconstruction, and Federalism: Article IV's Guarantee of a Republican Form of Government as a Forgotten Source of Congressional Power

In recent years, the Supreme Court of the United States has expressed profound skepticism of congressional action that risks intruding upon the operation of state governments. Simultaneously, the Court has taken a dim view of federal efforts to protect the right to vote. Th is Comment argues that both doctrinal shift s are in tension with the Constitution’s requirement that the federal government guarantee a “Republican Form of Government” to every state in the Union.

Since 1849, the Supreme Court has held that the Republican Guarantee Clause is enforceable only by Congress. Congress invoked the clause to enact a program of sweeping political reform in the American South during Reconstruction. Led by Senator Charles Sumner, Congress mandated new state constitutions and amended state suff rage laws on that authority. Presented with the opportunity to invalidate these efforts, the Supreme Court declined to reach the question. In the more than one hundred years since, the Court has continued to recognize congressional primacy regarding the Republican Guarantee Clause.

This Comment argues that Congress has more power to act with respect to state government structure than it or the Court currently recognizes. Th e clause’s historic concern with voting rights, in particular, makes it an underutilized source of constitutional authority for congressional protection of the right to vote.

About the Author

J.D., UCLA School of Law, 2026; B.A., University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 2021. This project was first conceived during a class discussion with Professor Rick Hasen, before being subsequently nurtured in conversation with Professors Justin Levitt, Alexander Arnold, Blake Emerson, Clyde Spillenger, and Stuart Banner, and I am deeply grateful for their contributions and encouragement. I am also grateful to the friends who supported this project throughout its development, particularly Sara Eckmann, Mitchell Golden, and Alex Dang. I am indebted to the wonderful editorial team at the UCLA Law Review for several fantastic editorial suggestions and superb Bluebooking assistance. Whatever mistakes may remain are entirely my own. Finally, I am grateful to my parents, who acted as my first educators and have always encouraged my endeavors.

By LRIRE