**Constitutional limits on executive authority over elections, combined with repeated court blocks on administration efforts, underpin the 91.5% trader consensus against nationalization.** The U.S. Constitution assigns primary responsibility for the time, place, and manner of elections to states and Congress, with no independent presidential power to assume control. Trump administration executive orders from 2025 and 2026 seeking proof-of-citizenship requirements, mail-ballot restrictions, and expanded federal oversight have faced successful legal challenges, with lower courts and the Supreme Court limiting implementation. Recent actions have centered on narrower steps such as DHS citizenship database sharing with states, DOJ investigations into noncitizen voting (over 90 cases), and deployment of poll monitors, while broader attempts to dictate state processes or seize administration have been rebuffed. White House statements have framed earlier “nationalize” comments as references to legislation like the SAVE Act rather than direct federal takeover, and senior officials have publicly ruled out martial-law or emergency measures to assume voting operations ahead of the 2026 midterms. These structural, judicial, and political constraints explain the strong market pricing against full nationalization.