Let me monetize this in an example, while in reality this cannot be monetized, Bob. But folks tend to get the mechanism right away when it is about money, so humor me.
Let's put a cost of $60 on anything equality. Then, let's look at the US Constitution, voting, and the three levels of government.
The Federal level charges $100 for voting, and that is more than what people should pay. Still, it is very clearly pronounced in the US Constitution, so we pay up the extra money; we have to -- it simply is the way it is.
-The Framers don't explain the reason for the extra charge, but the benefit is that the Federation is then stronger than it would have been with just that $60. The Federation can then withstand foreign enemies and extreme internal conflicts much better.
The State levels are also charging us $100 for voting, and when we complain about that, the States point to the Tenth Amendment in which they are given powers all the way beyond any specifics being declared; they are empowered for all that is not declared otherwise.
-In other words, we can indeed complain for good reasons, but the judges are not going to decide in our favor because we cannot point at the line where the State trespassed its power. We do see the $60 pronounced, but we also see State powers without a clear boundary where their power ends. We're out of luck even when the People are also given that power all the way beyond specific details.
For the local levels we are also charged $100, and that is unconstitutional. We accepted for this example that the cost of equality is $60, so they are asking more than they should.
-The State provided various options for voting at the local levels, and all these options cost $100. The States did not provide the option for local governments to just charge that $60. The States are therefore limiting local government, making it illegal to not charge more than that $60.
I hope you see that at the local level, the State is making a demand of the public, while they were not given that power. This is a taking that comes out of our pockets and there is no legal ground for it.
For State elections, they can get away with charging $100 because they snub their noses at the $60 requirement and they simply charged the same as the Federal government.
Yet establishing a secondary level within the State and the State then also making the people pay extra for local elections, that is a taking that is not allowed.
The State is therefore the reason the local governments are at fault, US Constitution-wise. But the local governments are the ones executing this, pocketing the extra money. So, the local government is truly at fault, overcharging us.
--
An example without monetizing this can also make this clear. The State is then the landlord of a large apartment complex (of cities and counties). Inside these apartments are kitchens (i.e. local governments are holding elections). Here is the point: the landlord declares that no one is allowed to cook Brussels sprouts in their kitchen.
That is clearly illegal, an overstepping of the State's power/rights. They can get away with not-cooking Brussels sprouts in their own State kitchen, but they cannot demand the same in a kitchen they legally own but do not occupy.
Bob, let me know if this is clear or not.
It is of course always easiest to understand when we see 'do A, then B, then C' in writing.
Folks can have a harder time when the wording is 'do A and B' and A then receiving an exception to A, and B then hardly expressed in details.
A is then the overall equality and the exception is then the voting format for the Federal level.
B is then the highest level of powers given to the People with this highest level of power not being pronounced in details.
But all the words are there to see the setup clearly.
It's like sudoku, the empty position in sudoko can indeed get filled out with a very specific number because of the other positions in the puzzle that are already filled out.
