; and that [i]n those cases, such power will only be exercised, until the legislature of this State shall make provision in the Premises[.] ). (8) Congress finds that the Framers designed and the ratifying States understood the Elections Clause to serve solely as a protective backstop to ensure the preservation of the Federal Government, not as a font of limitless power for Congress to wrest control of Federal elections from the States. (9) This understanding was also reinforced by debate during the first Congress that convened under the Constitution where Representative Aedanus Burke proposed a constitutional amendment to limit the Times, Places and Manner Clause to emergencies. Although the amendment failed, those on both sides of the Burke amendment debate already understood the Elections Clause to limit Federal elections power to emergencies. (10) History clearly shows that even in the first Congress that convened under the Constitution, it was acknowledged and understood through the debates that ensued over the Elections Clause provision that Congress’ control over elections is limited. (11) Similarly, proponent Representative Smith of South Carolina also believed the original text of the Elections Clause already limited the Federal Government’s power over Federal elections to emergencies and so thought there would be no harm in supporting an amendment to make that language express. Annals of Congress 801 (1789) Joseph Gales Edition. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875 (loc.gov). So, even the records of the First Congress reflect a recognition of the emergency nature of congressional power over Federal elections. (12) Similarly, the Supreme Court has supported this understanding. In Smiley v. Holm, the Court held that article 1, section 4 of the Constitution reserved to the States the primary . . . authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of