In the case of Bucklin v. United States in 1895, the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to voting rights and federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff, George W. Bucklin, was charged with illegally voting in a Rhode Island election for U.S Representatives while not being a legal resident of that state. He argued that his conviction should be overturned because he believed it fell outside federal jurisdiction as it pertained to an internal matter within Rhode Island's boundaries. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his conviction stating that under Article I Section 4 of the Constitution (the Elections Clause), Congress has broad authority over regulating elections for Senators and Representatives which includes determining who is eligible to vote in such elections. Therefore, even though this issue involved intrastate activity (i.e., within one state), it still fell under federal purview due its connection to Congressional elections. The court also noted that states do have power over their own electoral processes but only when Congress hasn't exercised its power on those matters or where there isn’t any conflict between state laws and congressional regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Bucklin v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce was too broad and could potentially infringe on states' rights. The dissenting justices believed that while Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce, this power does not extend to actions within a single state just because they may indirectly affect such commerce. They contended that if every action with even an indirect impact on interstate trade fell under federal jurisdiction, then virtually all aspects of life would be subject to national regulation - something they saw as contrary to the principles of limited government and federalism enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, according to them, since Bucklin's alleged crime occurred entirely within one state (Rhode Island), it should have been outside Federal purview regardless of its potential effects on interstate business activities.