Does the fed govt have the power to ensure honest elections? If not, who does?

Back in 1965 the Democrats rammed through a law called the "Voting Rights Act."  Because in 1965 Democrats controlled the presidency and both chambers of congress, they could do anything they wanted (Repubs were afraid to filibuster because the alphabet networks would scream that they were "obstructing").  So one of the commands of that law was a provision that if a state didn't have enough black members of congress, either the DOJ's "voting rights division" or a federal judge would put that state on a "bad list."

States on the "bad list" were prohibited from making ANY changes to congressional districts or imposing ANY requirements to vote (like requiring proof of citizenship or even that the voter was who he or she claimed to be) without the permission of a federal judge.  This order was euphemistically called "pre-clearance."  Nice name, eh?

And of course when blacks sued a state, the case was always heard by a pro-Democrat fed judge, who always ruled for the plaintiffs.  It was a perfect formula for disaster.

Wait...when Trump tried to reduce vote fraud by requiring photo-ID to vote, and removing dead people from voter rolls, every damn Democrat screamed "The constitution says states have total control over how they run their elections!!!"  Yet back when the Dem-controlled congress wanted more blacks in congress (merely a coincidence that virtually all blacks were Democrats), Democrats pols insisted that congress had the power to force red states to draw boundaries of congressional districts to ensure a black won that district.

Democrat pols screamed that drawing nice square-ish districts was "diluting the voting power of blacks!!" 

As a result, some states were forced by federal judges to draw congressional districts to create the majority-black districts that ensured a black would win.  Problem was, to ensure a majority-black district often required drawing a district that stretched for a hundred miles but in places was only a mile wide!  (For young Americans this is called "gerrymandering" and the Dems have been doing it for over a century.)  But federal judges DEMANDED this, to guarantee more black members of congress.

And it worked: blacks are about 13% of the U.S. population, and comprise 14.5% of congress.

So when the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that drawing congressional districts to essentially ensure that blacks would win a seat was unconstitutional, the congressional black caucus (and every Democrat in congress) went ballistic:  "Duh RAAACIS' conservatives on duh court iz suppressing duh black vote!"

Horseshit, but useful propaganda for Democrats, so the Media ran with it--endlessly.

But this shouting match over how states must draw their congressional districts raises a more important principle: does the Constitution allow states to run their elections utterly corruptly--allowing non-citizens to vote, or having such lax procedures that fraudsters can vote several times--while barring the federal government from trying to ensure that elections are honest?

This is a HUGE question--and one the Dems hope you don't understand.

Scum-sucking Democrats claim "Dere iz no vote fraud!"  Then when it's proven, they instantly pivot to "Well dere wudn't enuf to change the result!"

Ahh, so if you lying sons of bitches really believe the horseshit you're spouting ("dere ain't no fraud"), you shouldn't have any problem with ensuring that only citizens vote, eh?  

Democrats: "REEEEEeeeee!  Yew iz suppressin' duh vote!!!" 

Source

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisiana-gov-on-supreme-court-decision-and-suspending-house-primary-elections-60-minutes-transcript/