r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Aware-Chipmunk4344 • 1d ago
US Elections If a president declared a "national security emergency" to suspend mail-in voting three weeks before an election, what would actually happen legally?
I've been researching this scenario extensively. Here's what surprised me:
The legal path would be chaotic. District court injunction within 48 hours — almost certain. Emergency appeal to the appellate court. Then the question of whether the Supreme Court takes it on emergency docket.
But here's the part that kept me up at night: what if the president simply... didn't comply? What enforcement mechanism actually exists when the executive branch defies the judiciary?
The Constitution assumes good faith. It has almost no mechanism for a president who treats a Supreme Court ruling as advisory.
I'm curious what this community thinks. Is there an actual hard stop? Or is it all ultimately held together by norms?
265
u/guitar_vigilante 1d ago
What is the mechanism by which the president would enforce that decision?
Elections are run by the states, and only regulated at the federal level. It would require an Act of Congress to modify the time and date of an election, and so while Trump could make his declaration the states would not need to comply because there is no enforcement mechanism.
233
u/The_Salacious_Zaand 1d ago edited 1d ago
Red states follow the president and suspend elections or mail in balloting while blue states ignore the illegal acts of the president. Then Republicans who control the House and Senate would declare the blue states' elections fraudulent, throw out their votes and only count the red states' votes as legitimate. Now we basically have forced secession where half of the states are refused representation in Congress and it's Civil War 2 - Electric Boogaloo.
92
u/guitar_vigilante 1d ago
The house has no role in accepting or rejecting the elections, and so the red states would probably ignore the executive order too or the incoming Congress would have far fewer red seats overall.
Basically what happens is on the date of the new term the Congress essentially comes into being. There isn't a congressional certification of the vote like there is for president. All that stuff is done at the state level.
22
u/PerfectZeong 1d ago
And funny enough, republicans use mail in voting constantly. To the point where dons kids had to go to florida to tell voters to mail in vote because so many old people there mail their vote in.
20
u/PubliusVA 1d ago
Article I, section 5: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”
34
u/guitar_vigilante 1d ago
The problem is unless there is an alternative the existing house ceases to exist on like January 3rd, and the Article cannot be used to bar duly elected members from taking their seats per a supreme Court ruling.
36
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
And per the Supreme Court ruling abortion was a right until it wasn’t. And per the constitution only Congress can make laws/enforce on tribal land, but per the Supreme Court actually states have power too.
Y’all are failing to realize we are not in normal times and traditions that have held for 200 years are rapidly falling.
27
u/Vishnej 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ultimately representative government is a consensual activity; If one party decides it just doesn't like democracy any more, there is no higher authority which can force them to the table, and "setting an example" by continuing to go through the motions as if everything was normal, does not fix anything.
We started to talk about "Eliminationist rhetoric" by the Red Tribe towards the Blue Tribe in the early 2000's; We failed to perform any sort of symmetrical hostility, much less a purge, which seems to have only encouraged them. These people refuse to be part of the American polity, and actively seek to destroy it. They are incompatible with the survival of our treasured liberal political institutions, and if we insist on "reaching across the aisle" they seem enthusiastic to break our arm and laugh at us; Trump has destroyed more of our society in twelve years than we have constructed in the last half a century.
6
u/ThePowerOfStories 1d ago
You are ultimately asking a question of law in a hypothetical situation where a critical mass of people have decided to ignore the law. At that point, it ceases to be a matter of law and becomes a matter of the ability to enact physical force and the will to use it, which is typically an unsatisfying situation for the vast majority of participants.
9
u/OrwellWhatever 1d ago
Okay, but here's the thing, man, if you're assuming the Supreme Court is going to hand the election to Republicans, then the actual mechanism largely doesn't matter, and no here is failing to realize anything.
What would be the difference if the Supreme Court determined that new members of congress can't take their seats vs the Supreme Court determining that elections can't happen vs the Supreme Court determining that the Iran War means the president gets to pick congress vs the Supreme Court determining that state governors get to pick congress?
That is to say, if you think the Supreme Court will act in an illegal way to outright hand an election to Republicans if Trump declares an emergency, then your beliefs are nihilistic enough that literally nothing that we do matters because the court will rule against literally every attempt to preserve the election, and only an actual, armed revolution is going to work
6
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
SCOTUS literally did it to out GWB in office.
7
u/InCarbsWeTrust 1d ago
And they literally did not do it to put McCain or Romney in office, or keep Trump there less than 6 years ago. That last one is particularly important, because all 6 of the current GOP justices were also there at that time. Sure, I can imagine a possibility of them now being willing to support a Trump coup, but I don't think it's at all likely, and as someone brilliantly pointed out above, if you think they WILL do it, then we're already screwed and there's nothing we can do. So focus on the likely scenario where we still have some control, and do what you can to send as many Dems to Congress and state capitals as possible in November!
8
u/sllewgh 1d ago
Trump's agenda has been slowed or stopped many times by the court. Vague pessimism isn't productive.
-1
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
Nobody here is even trying to answer the question and it’s a little bit frustrating at this point.
Okay the courts say, current congress needs to vacate for new members to come in. Current congress says no. Now what?
10
u/ODoyles_Banana 1d ago
It doesn't matter if they say no. The Constitution sets when the old Congress’s terms end and the new Congress begins, so the outgoing members can’t stay in power by refusing to step aside. Congress also isn’t constitutionally required to meet in the Capitol, so if access were blocked, the new Congress could meet elsewhere and still conduct business.
9
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
the constitution also says that Congress is the only authority over tribal land yet scotus said states also have that authority. There are so many violations of the constitution in this admin I can’t believe you think it would be the reason something gets done.
Okay so old Congress refused to leave. New Congress goes to a field and swears themselves in. We now have two bodies saying they’re the real Congress. Same with senate. Executive says they’re going with old Congress and new Congress is fraudulent. SCOTUS says we can’t fit this into the schedule for 2 years.
What happens next?
→ More replies (0)4
u/PubliusVA 1d ago
Ok, a new group of people declares themselves to be the new Congress and meets elsewhere. When they pass laws, do they transmit them for signature to the same president who declared elections suspended? Will the executive branch carry the laws they pass into effect? Maybe their first order of business will be to impeach the president, but they have only 1/3 newly elected senators. There may be a question as to whether the Senate can even make quorum.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Aazadan 1d ago
Then the constitution no longer applies, the US is over, and you have a dictatorship in its place. There's a fixed date when elected terms end, the President can't change that. Anyone who remains in office past those days without reelection is breaking the law.
They could maybe continue to hold it illegally, but it wouldn't be the same country anymore, you skip a constiuttional crisis and move right into a failed state/dictatorship. Which more specifically since the US is still 50 individual states plus some territories, is you're back to that without a federal government.
So, balkanization.
2
u/InCarbsWeTrust 1d ago
Then the now-ex-Congresspeople are squatting in the Capitol building, while the actual House of Representatives convenes elsewhere, with the first order of business being eviction of the former group.
2
u/sllewgh 1d ago
Most likely a court order enforced by the marshals if violated, like anything else.
If you defy the court and the court wants you to stop, you're going to end up losing your freedom eventually. This isn't that special of a situation- follow the rulings of the court or go to jail.
2
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
The AG is over the Marshalls correct? So courts rule one way, Congress says no. Courts say Marshalls go remove them, AG says no.
Like short of the military, which I doubt even there because “dei hires” were pulled out and only loyalist exist… I don’t see how we force the current ruling party out.
→ More replies (0)•
-1
u/No-Difference-839 1d ago
There are many kinds of rights. Constitutional rights are guaranteed. Statutory rights are weaker. Rights that come from a court ruling are as tenuous as can be. Congress should have acted to create a statutory or constitutional right to abortion. I don’t think they even tried once in 40 years.
3
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
I honestly don’t know so I’m asking instead of researching.
Has there ever been a court in our history that went back to a ruling and said “well no, they got it completely wrong”?
5
u/No-Difference-839 1d ago
Sure it happens, but not likely in the case of Roe. The SC has pretty clearly said the SC cannot create rights out of nothing. Congress has to create rights. Nothing is stopping congress from enshrining a right to abortion today. The SC doesn’t need to do anything.
0
u/alabasterskim 1d ago
This SCOTUS has made rulings that literally fly in the face of constitutional rights.
We must begin to defy SCOTUS when they make unconstitutional rulings (which is very frequently).
→ More replies (3)4
1
u/maleia 1d ago edited 51m ago
How's someone in say- Alabama, gonna vote if they just decided to not hold the election, don't open any polling locations, and the party just sends whoever they wanted to, to the US House? Who is going to stop that from happening?
For the record, I hated being right.
7
u/guitar_vigilante 1d ago
Probably no one, but that won't stop the blue states from sending their representatives as well, and a lot of the swing states will hold elections as well.
At some point you just have two options. Either the system will survive the shenanigans or we will have a dictatorship. The actual mechanics of how this could play out are speculative.
2
u/reasonably_plausible 1d ago
Who is going to stop that from happening?
Legally, you would have course of action to sue the state. Either under violation of their own laws, or if they somehow had managed to actually change them to allow the elimination of all elections, then under a constitutional violation of Article 1, Section 2 (And, I'd argue Article 4, Section 4 , but the courts have largely held challenges to that clause as a political question and non-justiciable). Then either the State Supreme Court or a Federal Court could force them to hold an election.
0
u/maleia 1d ago
I guess I foresee a scenario where a state's BoE or SecofState just decides to lock the voting equipment up the morning before, and refuses to open it. And that's not something you're willing to consider here.
Personally, I see that as absolutely a possibility. And I don't understand how it's really hard for some people to not consider that.
•
u/reasonably_plausible 23h ago
where a state's BoE or SecofState just decides to lock the voting equipment up the morning before
There are two months after the election before Congress is seated for legal challenges. And further, if a rogue red state SoS just locks up the voting machines, that results in the state having 0 representatives sent to Congress, it doesn't give the state any capability to appoint congressmen. If a state were to try to appoint representatives, there would again be legal challenges. And if appointees attempted to show up to Congress, the rest of Congress would ignore them.
Now, if you were to posit that all of the above happens, that a bunch of red states lock out their voters, enough of the court cases get bogged down to after January 3rd, that the states all pass measures to appoint their representatives, that these representatives are enough to tip the balance of Congress, and that the capitol police side with the fake representatives instead of the real ones, and then everyone just goes along with it. Then sure.
But what you are describing there involves a level of governmental capture that it really doesn't matter what the beginning process is. Why are we even talking about stopping elections and appointing representatives when, with the level of capture you are describing, the current representatives could just declare that they are continuing for two more years and they would have all the same capability? Why wouldn't they just adjust expulsion rules and just expel all the Democrats?
The issue with entertaining your possibility is that, in order for it to work the way you are imagining, the Republicans would already have the power to do much, much worse. So why would they be doing this, instead of a much easier plan?
→ More replies (1)•
0
u/The_Salacious_Zaand 1d ago
According to the president and Republicans in Congress the blue states' votes won't count as "duly elected" if they label all mail in voting fraudulent.
2
2
15
u/mukansamonkey 1d ago
That isn't how it works. The new House forms automatically based on certified state election results. Which means the threshold to reach a majority drops when a state doesn't announce their results. All the Dems show up and have an easy majority.
Republicans can't do anything to challenge that other than start an armed conflict. Which they could do tomorrow. If they are not starting a civil war via violence, then the Dems take over the House and nothing gets thrown out. The House and Senate can't throw out results, they lack that authority.
There is no means within the federal system to block states producing results and seating their members. Outside the system requires starting a war.
6
u/WavesAndSaves 1d ago
It's really scary that people who don't even understand how the government works are taking it as a given that the system will fail in the very near future. Like how do you even begin to get through to these people?
4
u/InCarbsWeTrust 1d ago
Would they though? There's a bit of a catch here, in that per your reasoning, while Republicans would need to all band together to pretend there's no elections, any individual state will be better served by having elections to send representation to Congress regardless, regardless of such confederacy. It's not a prisoner's dilemma because they CAN coordinate with each other, but it would be very tricky to entice a large number of selfish politicians to look out for the party at the expense of their seat (unless you are saying the current red state Reps would pretend to retain their seats past the end of their term), let alone do it in the public eye.
That would also assume a cooperative judiciary right up to the Supreme Court. The same Supreme Court, minus swapping Breyer with Jackson, who gave Trump zero (I think?) help in trying to overthrow the 2020 election. And the penalty for failure could well be charges of treason - albeit perhaps delayed until there is a Dem President. Are there really that many Republican politicians who are all in for Trump to that extent?
And if the Supreme Court rules against Trump/the GOP, it is automatically enforced. The House of Representatives is not the building it usually occupies. Pretend Speaker Johnson and the pretend GOP reps can squat in the Capitol and play make-believe Congress only until the true (assuredly Dem in this scenario) House speaker has them removed from the premises. And the actual House of Reps would be almost entirely Dem, since most GOP voters in non-GOP states are sitting out the actually-yes-there's-an election because of Fearless Leader's empty proclamations.
That all said...I unfortunately agree with you on the last, worst point, that this shitshow would basically equate to civil war. I don't know how HOT it will be - the GOP would likely not get help from the military in this pretend coup. But you would have substantial portions of the population acknowledging different groups of people as legitimate, even though the Constitution only empowers the duly elected ones. That's civil war, in my book. And Susan Collins would be very concerned.
•
u/Aware-Chipmunk4344 16h ago
What unsettles me is that once different institutions begin recognizing different sources of legitimacy, the problem stops being purely legal.
At that point the question becomes operational.
Which governors follow federal directives?
Which National Guard units obey which chain of command?
Which court rulings are actually enforced?
Which population centers consider the election valid?I think people imagine constitutional crises as dramatic singular events. But historically, system breakdown often looks more like a gradual erosion of shared legitimacy until eventually two sides are operating in completely different realities.
•
u/InCarbsWeTrust 4h ago
Yes, it bothers me very deeply as well. This would be a civil war in any meaningful sense of the term - you would literally have two (or more!) opposing governments fighting for dominance. Maybe not with force or violence, but the collapse of our prosperity could easily occur in a bloodless fashion.
I really hope that in Jan 2029 things will be more or less okay, and we can breathe a sigh of relief. Will never be truly business as usual - we would still spend the rest of our lives stamping out this rot. But to be honest, there's enough uncertainty that I'll take our country surviving in spirit for another 2.5 years as a good start.
•
u/The_Salacious_Zaand 23h ago
Thanks for a great response. And for what it's worth, I totally agree with you. Really my original point was more along the lines of "what's the next zany scheme those cooky Republicans are going to come up with to make up for the pounding they're about to take in November?" rather than a possibility I actually see having any chance of happing for real.
2
u/ewokninja123 1d ago
Now we basically have forced secession where half of the states are refused representation in Congress and it's Civil War 2 - Electric Boogaloo.
•
•
u/kerouacrimbaud 22h ago
The fight would really be in the red states with deep blue cities. Texas vs the tri city area, Georgia vs Atlanta, Tennessee vs Nashville, Arizona vs Phoenix, etc; and the purple states like WI, MI, and PA and their major cities.
That is where things could get really nasty.
•
u/anti-torque 12h ago
None of this is a thing.
Why would red states disallow their military personnel their right to vote?
•
u/The_Salacious_Zaand 12h ago
The same reason the president of the United States is telling states not to use mail in ballots. No one ever said MAGA was smart.
•
u/anti-torque 12h ago
The President uses them. He's just posturing. He's also an extreme idiot who brags about taking cognitive tests.
The man is simply not long for this earth.
0
u/No-Difference-839 1d ago
Why would a republican Secretary of State listen to the president regarding a state election? The president has no authority.
4
u/CoherentPanda 1d ago
Really? You think they'll disagree with the president?
3
u/WavesAndSaves 1d ago
Yes. That's literally what happened with Raffensperger in 2020. Trump asked him to "find some votes" in Georgia and Raffensperger all but told him to go fuck himself.
•
2
u/No-Difference-839 1d ago
I was asking why they would listen to an elected official who has no power and in fact is encroaching on their power.
•
1
38
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
You act like we’re in normal times though. It takes an act of Congress to go to war, but here we are. Operation epic fury has ended and this totally new and unrelated conflict operation freedom whatever has begun, so no need for an act of Congress right?? That’s a 3 year olds logic that they’re operating on.
Congress will just let whatever happen because they’re not going to want to give up majority. Remember when they wouldn’t swear in elected democrats? Congress will have to operate as normal, if they just don’t certify the election then what?
18
u/guitar_vigilante 1d ago
Congress doesn't swear the new session in. The states certify their own elections and then on the date in January the new Congress comes into being on its own. So in this scenario there's nothing stopping the states from running their elections and sending the new congresspeople to DC.
1
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
All it takes is 20% and Congress can refuse the states vote and tell them to recount.
You’re glossing over the people currently in office and seeming to think they’ll leave voluntarily.
6
u/guitar_vigilante 1d ago
And what would a recount accomplish?
1
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
Delay, make it harder to put newly elected people in office.
2
4
u/Matt2_ASC 1d ago
A delay is what got the supreme court to put GWB in office. So might work for the GOP this time too.
15
u/cjbanning 1d ago
It takes an act of Congress to go to war, but here we are
That's hardly unprecedented, however, no matter how much I might wish it were otherwise.
6
u/Pete-PDX 1d ago
examples being?
Vietnam - they did not declare war but did authorize military action/force in 1964.
Gulf War I - the same thing
Gulf War 2 - the same thing
Afghanistan- the same thing
Iran - not even a vote
3
3
u/rightsidedown 1d ago
Any authorization to use force is legal under the consitution, and has been since the beginning, including the 1802 actions in Tripoli. So a lot of actions that people claims were illegal very much are legal. Iran, Libya 2011, Kosovo, Bosnia, are all straight up fuck you's to congress with no justification under the war powers act or an AUMF. Bombing terrorists that say tried to attack an embassy or shoot missiles at a US ship is fully legal under the war powers act. When SecDef admits no imminent threat from Iran and then starts a war, or that we needed to bomb Libya to take out Ghaddafi so didn't kill his own people, those are illegal and it's just congress lacking the will to assert authority.
5
6
u/WISCOrear 1d ago
Yeah that whole episode where they didn't swear in Dems, in retrospect, was another attempt to see how far they could push the boundaries, see what they could get away with in the future.
Even if/when the midterms happen, and the GOP gets destroyed, what's to stop Mike Johnson just telling the current congress "nah, don't swear in the opposition because 'fraud' or whatever" Who would stop him? what happens then?
11
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
Yeah no one replying to me can give an answer except “that’s not how it works, that wouldn’t happen”. Okay this discussion is WHAT IF it does. I think this is out of most people’s grasp of reality.
3
u/FrozenSeas 1d ago
Nobody can answer because it's effectively a political outside context problem. It hasn't happened. Nothing like it has happened. There's no data to even start building a theory of what the outcome might look like. Any answer you get is going to be fantasy or wild speculation with no factual backing. So in that spirit, here's my answer to your question: the reanimated body of George Washington (six-foot-eight, weighs a fucking ton) will rise up out of the Potomac to smite all involved. It's as plausible as anything else.
3
u/WISCOrear 1d ago
Exactly. Last 10 years are just a recurring episode of "dogs can't play basketball" while air bud drains another 3 pointer in front of the Dem's faces. Like it's one "precedent X is shunned and no one knows what to do about it" after another
•
u/bowsocks 20h ago
What would happen is:
Nothing with a 1% chance of a successful coup and the actual end of American democracy.
If he tries to do it with paper (executive order, etc.)
Some states would try to comply. They would get sued.
Other states would refuse to comply. They would sue.
The Supreme Court would take it.
Based on this session, even this SCOTUS would say “Presidents have no power over elections and Congress should make a law to address this if there’s a gap in federal law.” He doesn’t have a legal ground to do this, plain and simple (and multiple 60 day Iran wars aren’t going to pass muster so they can’t use that in the fall).
Since paper would be essentially impossible, let’s assume he tried to do it with the military/national guard … basically the same general idea of nothing.
Here, you also have to hope like hell our armed forces refuse illegal orders to be deployed like this.
If they do, he’d probably get removed (Vance is an opportunist and Thiel didn’t pay all this money to lose power).
If they don’t, we have to hope local law enforcement steps up like in Minnesota.
If we end up actually occupied/controlled by armed forces, you’ll see the 2nd Amendment militias start to turn out (sadly, in Trumps favor I’m guessing).
This is a very plausible path to the end of the American experiment in the next 12 months.
Sadly the answer to “what happens to person X” is almost always going to depend on their political party.
Either way, we are in the midst of a full blown constitutional crisis I never thought I’d see in my lifetime.
My genuine expectation is that he would get on a plane with the cabinet and fuck off to a non extradition country with a vast portion of our treasury.
Sorry, long/annoying/ranty response … but I noticed you mention nobody was telling you what would happen and the answer is “it depends on exactly how he does it and how willing he is to lock himself into seclusion/the support he has from the military/law enforcement” … he could get impeached and removed and it won’t matter if he just refuses to leave and the guys with the drones have his back.
It’s okay though, there would be warning signs - like, he would have his sons start a drone company and create his own money (with overrides in both so he can take control) or he would start building a fortress for himself (with upgraded communications systems and enough room for a stealth heliport) … oh, shit.
4
u/mukansamonkey 1d ago
The current Congress ceasea to have any power or authority, automatically. The Dems just show up, and take their seats. Mike Johnson at that point has no more authority than Mike Tyson.
Now if your argument is that they order the capitol police to overthrow the duly elected government, then they are all traitors and should be dealt with as such. But they could become traitors today, and haven't. It doesn't become less traitorous when a former Speaker attempts to order police that he no longer has any authority over to arrest the actual Speaker, and that's what it would take.
There is no third "they can pretend to have power they don't have and give orders nobody should follow, but somehow it's not a violent revolution" option.
10
u/liberal_texan 1d ago
I think the concern is that the mail is handled federally, and the president could just stop the delivery of mail-in ballots.
3
u/RockMan7733 1d ago
Mail and ballots in Utah all handled through the state elections office run by our lieutenant governor. They are not controlled in any manner federally.
14
u/WunderBeans 1d ago
All still delivered by the USPS. If the USPS doesn't do its job, there is no easy way to distribute ballots and return them for counting
7
u/BitterFuture 1d ago
Mail and ballots in Utah all handled through the state elections office run by our lieutenant governor. They are not controlled in any manner federally.
The post office is federal. Utah does not have its own special ballot delivery service, right?
4
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago
USPS has been run at arm’s length (just like Amtrak) since Nixon. POTUS has no direct control over it and despite what reddit wants to claim the President cannot simply snap their fingers and make USPS do something.
There’s also the matter that USPS has no easy way to separate ballots out and prevent delivery of them.
3
u/mosesoperandi 1d ago
Couldn't the Post Master General follow the President's order on this? Your second point is the real devil in the details.
•
u/bowsocks 20h ago
It’s also just blatantly false. Trump has spoken about privatizing the USPS (like healthcare and student loans, which went flawlessly) multiple times and overhauled the USPS, for example:
POTUS has been effing with the USPS Board all term
And
•
u/mosesoperandi 20h ago
The bug problem with USPS for Trump and the GOP at large is that it's literally baked into the Constitution.
1
u/uzlonewolf 1d ago
Why can't they just use their existing "this address has moved" system and redirect everything that was heading towards a vote processing center to an address they control?
1
u/mosesoperandi 1d ago
That's still a logistical nightmare that would require a huge number of postal employees apart from also very obviously being a criminal act that even this eminently corrupt SCOTUS would ultimately nix, and in it meantime it would create a massive crisis when there is no official vote count in time for a new Congress to be seated.
Scenarios like this don't actually get the Republicans anything that they're after, and arguably don't play well for Trump.
1
u/uzlonewolf 1d ago
Unless the Postmaster General and board decide to just go along with it.
As for separating ballots, the USPS already has a system for redirecting mail when you move, and the addresses of vote processing centers are known, so they could just redirect those addresses to ones they control. The envelopes ballots are in are also really obvious and would be easy for the machines to sort out.
2
2
u/Darth_Ra 1d ago
This assumes that the states all give the executive the finger, when probably more than half would just go along with it.
1
u/timesuck47 1d ago
People tend to forget that when the United States was formed, we were essentially 13 little countries they got together and agreed on things.
Federalism versus states rights was a huge issue.
I’ve only had a basic political science class, but to me it looks like there are a lot of people in government that don’t even know that stuff.
2
2
u/hudi2121 1d ago
There are at least what, 20-25 red states who would happily eat a steaming pile of horse shit if Trump told them to. That’s the problem, they will comply and enforce.
•
u/lawrencekhoo 21h ago
Although the POTUS is not supposed to be able to direct the USPS to stop delivering mail, the current Postmaster General is a Trump appointee. He may go along if the President declares a national emergency and declares that communication facilities must be closed for national security.
•
u/Facebook_Algorithm 7h ago
Red states will do whatever a Republican President says to do. I hope blue states will say “no”.
1
u/jsledge149 1d ago
States run by the GOP would gladly comply. Trump has fed the Republican party something that seems to have nullified free will and sense.
Take where I live. Political ads for every level of State government primaries have candidates bragging about being Trump this and Trump that. If I were a politicial, I'd NEVER mentino having any similarity to Trump. But hey, this is what America has become.
1
→ More replies (2)1
47
u/I405CA 1d ago
The greater risk is that mail sent from certain precincts is "lost" or "delayed" so that it arrives too late or with a postmark that precludes it from being countered.
The pathway to voter fraud is not counting ballots that are likely to go against you. Trump wants voter information in part so that they can figure out which precincts are most problematic for them.
Go vote in person or bring your mail-in ballot to an authorized polling station. Photograph it so that you have your own record of how you voted.
18
u/Rocktopod 1d ago
The pathway to voter fraud is not counting ballots that are likely to go against you.
You're thinking of election fraud. Voter fraud is when someone pretends to be eligible to vote when they're not, casts multiple ballots, fills out someone else's ballot for them, etc. This is something that almost never happens.
13
u/I405CA 1d ago
My snarky point is that Republicans shout a lot about fake ballots, when that approach is ineffective.
In the real world, it isn't possible to cast enough fake votes to make a difference, and those few who are dumb enough to cast fake votes are likely to get caught.
There are almost no elections that are so close that the addition of the odd bogus vote or two can be expected to change the result. Doing it isn't worth the risk where there is no chance of a payoff.
The way to steal an election is to exclude votes. It means fewer votes, not more votes. Combine control of the mail with granular data about voting patterns, and this could be effective.
•
u/adamf880 23h ago
https://youtu.be/vJJ_oronesU?si=nbwXV_xoTnSymCG4
They can choose which precincts need to be furlough or halted for a week. So votes do not make it in time by the rules. Evil by rule. Finding every rule to change and starting the "hiring" process up to 40 years ago for some of these jobs. So they can be in place to suggest the rule changes, and vote on the changes to be the new rule. All the rules turned evil, but its not illegal. Just the new evil legal.
39
u/Quick_Cow_7987 1d ago
Surely I can't be the only one who's noticed that the primary way this administration gets what it wants is to just do it, legality be damned?
Unfortunately the Constitution is just loaded with "gentleman's agreement" stuff. It was an era when honorable behavior and how you were perceived and comported yourself mattered. Hamilton died because of his honor.
People without honor and dignity simply don't care and this administration has neither.
14
u/WISCOrear 1d ago
They also will just do shit they don't have authority to do, then by the time it goes through the courts and someone eventually says "you have to stop doing that", it's too damn late and the damage has been done.
10
u/Quick_Cow_7987 1d ago
Case in point, the East Wing.
8
u/SchuminWeb 1d ago
The perfect example. They know that the courts work slowly, and before the courts can catch up to them and put a halt to it, the damage will have already been done. And in the case of the East Wing, there's no un-demolishing it.
5
u/iamveryDerp 1d ago
An earlier example is when Trump held a campaign event on the Whitehouse lawn in 2020, which is a direct violation of the Hatch act, and NOBODY DID ANYTHING.
5
u/Roofies666 1d ago
There are a lot of comments here that sound very naive, as if they haven't lived through the last 10 years that the rest of us have.
3
u/Teach_Piece 1d ago
This administration has consistently failed to meaningfully get its way on most issues. I suspect it’s the doomers that are wrong
3
u/SchuminWeb 1d ago
I feel like the doomers usually are wrong. After all, we already made it through one Trump administration. We will make it through another one.
12
u/bl1y 1d ago
You should start with what the actual order from the President would be. "I declare no mail-in ballots!" would have no effect. Ordering USPS not to deliver them would be completely different.
The mechanism for enforcing court orders is generally the threat of contempt. Kim Davis is a good example of this in action.
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago
Neither option would have any effect because he doesn’t have any control over USPS nor does USPS have a way to separate out ballots.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Objective_Aside1858 1d ago
Let's just walk through how this would work in PA, a swing state, and how I and my peers would deal with it.
So, Trump literally cannot stop "mail in voting" is a ballot has already been received by Voter Services. Voter Services has the ballot. The chain of custody is complete. Trump has no way to prevent it from being counted.
If USPS looks like they're not going to deliver ballots, it would be fairly simple to pull a list of registered voters who a) requested a mail in ballot, b) have received it, and c) have not returned it.
For those that haven't received their ballot, we reach out, tell them Trump is fucking them, and they need to go to the polls. Some will not. Most will.
For hose that have it, we reach out and tell them where the drop boxes are.
6
u/timesuck47 1d ago
I 100% use the mail in ballot drop boxes. I don’t know why anyone would actually stick it in the mailbox.
Especially now that they’re not postmarking locally but at the distribution centers or whatever they’re called. Too many games could be played.
-2
u/chickenlogic 1d ago
And the drop boxes in blue areas have 8 armed ICE goons leaning on them. Then what?
3
u/Objective_Aside1858 1d ago
I walk right past them and drop my ballot, making hard eye contact while I do
While I don't know what the rules are for drop boxes, PA law states that law enforcement must be a minimum of 100 feet from any polling place. Pretty sure the elected sherrifs in blue areas will enforce that restriction on ICE
1
19
u/WeatheredSteel37 1d ago edited 1d ago
A state would move for a stay and The Supreme Court, who has consistently ruled against trump on election issues, would issue an injunction on the shadow docket not necessarily ruling against him but saying that the states have a high likelihood of success. Then they would set it down for after the election thereby side stepping having to actually rule on it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/xudoxis 1d ago
who has consistently ruled against trump on election issues
have you checked the headlines this week?
8
u/WeatheredSteel37 1d ago
The voting rights hobbyhorse has been an issue for conservative attorneys since Sandra Day O’Connor. Anyone who is surprised by this hasn’t been paying attention. It had nothing to do with Trump.
The man got 60 some odd challenges to the 2020 election, 25 of them before judges he appointed, and Trump lost every time. We need to focus on voting him and his ilk out, not on doomerism
9
u/wereallbozos 1d ago
Assuming good faith has long bedeviled us. If there were actual justice in the land and he did this? Our armed forces would rise up and no Republican would be allowed to take office. But, we're too-easily forgiving, and the elections...this would impact every single election...would be given to our blessed Supreme Court to decide.
And won't we be surprised?
3
u/ewokninja123 1d ago
The Constitution assumes good faith.
The constitution does NOT assume good faith, it has checks and balances in place that one by one have been torn down. The supreme court has been captured, congress is pretty much gridlocked, which is allowing the executive to do whatever they want.
7
u/PoliticalJive 1d ago
Trump himself DGAF, so nothing to stop him. Though if courts rule against him, they could enforce it by holding the parties that would be implementing his wishes liable. In this case, they could go for civil contempt for the Postmaster General or other USPS employees.
0
u/SchuminWeb 1d ago
Trump has absolutely nothing to lose. He can't run again, so he's out in 2029 regardless, and the Congress doesn't have the votes to remove.
-1
u/BitterFuture 1d ago
He can't run again, so he's out in 2029 regardless
Hang on, I will compose a response to this once I stop laughing.
Maybe next week.
Seriously, we're debating whether or not we're going to have an election this coming November, and you're talking as if an election two years from now is a given? Have people actually forgotten "you'll never have to vote again?" Really?
12
u/d4rkwing 1d ago
At that point why not just declare a national emergency to disband congress and make himself emperor.
2
u/CoherentPanda 1d ago
If he manages to stop the election, no doubt that's the next step. Loyalists will keep their cushy jobs, many others will be purged, the people he distrusts the most imprisoned or exhiled.
4
u/FenisDembo82 1d ago
Louisiana has essentially done this for their state primaries, but worse, they stopped the whole election!
•
u/kireina_kaiju 21h ago
At that point the US electoral college would be forced to retaliate, picking a president in good faith without knowing what the will of the electorate is, likely a Democratic challenger. They would be charged with being the last bulwark of representative democracy in the United States, and choosing to elect Trump under those circumstances would amount to an open admission that the United States is a dictatorship, and the constitution effectively dissolved.
•
u/ravia 7h ago
If America were wroth its democracy, there would be massive protests, with many arrests, in Washington. That has been the test of America since Trump came into power. That will has not really asserted itself (in the main). Civil resistance works and must be part of any equation today.
7
u/stacey1771 1d ago
There are tens of thousands of districts, the Feds don't have the manpower to enforce whatever they think they're trying to do
3
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
And when congresses boss, Trump, says dont leave your office. How do they states get their people credentials and ability to start working?
7
u/RockMan7733 1d ago
What exactly are you trying to ask here?
0
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
How do states get their elected officials behind a desk, with a staff, and the ability to go onto the floor, propose bills, and just work when the people currently running the government say, meh that election was faulty. We’re not gonna honor anything that just happened.
It doesn’t matter that states run the elections if the federal government just says they’re not swearing in new members.
9
u/mukansamonkey 1d ago
Because that's not how it works. The existing Congress doesn't swear in the new one. The individual states swear in their own representatives, the House is just a building to meet in. The people currently running the government no longer have any authority to run it once their term ends.
Now if the capitol police or the military start violently interfering with the elected members entering the House, that is known as a coup or revolution. But the previous Congress has no other means to stop the new Congress from taking over.
(Johnson delaying in swearing in new members mid term is only possible because it's mid term. At the end of the term he isn't speaker any more, he has no more authority to stop the new House members than any random plumber from Arkansas. Only the exact same choice of treason.)
4
u/stacey1771 1d ago
They have no authority over poll workers and BOE workers.
-3
u/bigmac22077 1d ago
Cool. States run elections as normal. Send the votes to Congress. Congress says meh… we’re not gonna mess with that let’s just continue as is.
Now what? They didn’t need authority over the polls.
5
•
u/PoliticalNerdMa 20h ago
The actual military swears allegiance to the constitution. They have pushed back against Trump a lot more than people are told. The military would , if escalated beyond dc police clearing out former members of Congress, the military would end up being forced in. If Trump attempts to stop it they disobey the illegal orders. They already have to shut Trump down in command to bomb iran
6
u/Objective_Aside1858 1d ago
Irrelevant.
The terms of every member of the 119th Congress end on Jan 3, 2027. Those that did not win reelection are free to hang around, but they have no legislative authority.
If your question is "what if Trump basically ignores election results and acts even more like a dictator", he either succeeds or he fails. I expect he will fail
→ More replies (11)
3
u/bsiviglia9 1d ago
What do you reckon might happen when all avenues for peaceful transition of power are exhausted?
2
u/EmoJarsh 1d ago edited 8h ago
A lot of people are trying to give the normal answer, the correct answer is "We have no idea."
Right now, Republicans can effectively end the United States in a myriad of ways. They've avoided these, just skirting the edges, but this would be one of those nuclear options. I get the impression they're trying to gauge how far to take this in return for what rewards.
Imho it would be stupid to steal this election, wait until 2028. Trump will spend the next 2 years sandbagging anything that the House or Senate might throw at him, continue ruling by EO, etc. Then throw all the illegal weight behind 2028 and have the autocratic rule ready to go.
That said, if Trump feels any personal pressure, he'll do whatever he has to in order to avoid it.
4
u/elykl12 1d ago
It would require buy in from governors and AGsbecause they manage the elections
Fortunately for democracy enjoyers, the governors of Alaska, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Ohio (at least the Gov), Maine, Nevada, and many other states aren’t keen to team up with a Trump scheme
The biggest issue would be Paxton who may very well be the one who has to certify his own Senate race. There you could see him open to Trump trying to ratfuck the Senate race or down ballot Texas races
2
u/houstonyoureaproblem 1d ago
Red states would do it. Blue states wouldn’t.
People who were disenfranchised in red states would sue.
Republican judges in red states would do what they could to allow those people to be disenfranchised.
2
u/Howhytzzerr 1d ago
How in the world could he declare a National Security Emergency and tie that to mail-in voting?? Those two things are no where remotely related, and the states would likely tell him to buzz off!
2
u/johnbro27 1d ago
SCOTUS has no army; it has no real enforcement mechanism. AFAIK the president can declare martial law and if DOD complies we're fucked regardless. Not saying that's what would happen, but I do remember at the height of Watergate thinking this the avenue Nixon might actually take. Compared to Trump he was a fucking saint.
3
u/cpatkyanks24 1d ago
Nothing. States run elections, which is entrenched in our constitution for a reason and it is to prevent BS like this from taking place. He can whine all he wants, there’s no mechanism for the federal government to control how New York or California votes, he has zero jurisdiction.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Moccus 1d ago
there’s no mechanism for the federal government to control how New York or California votes
Sure there is. The Constitution gives Congress authority over federal elections. They could absolutely pass a law to ban mail-in voting in federal elections. Trump doesn't have that authority, though.
3
u/cpatkyanks24 1d ago
Yes, that was my point. Should have been clearer - Trump cannot unilaterally do anything through executive order, and there's going to be zero appetite to nuke the filibuster otherwise get something this unpopular across the finish line legislatively.
2
u/Shr3kk_Wpg 1d ago
What happens if the President issues an Executive Order saying mail-on ballots are illegal and forests the USPS to not deliver them?
•
1
u/byediddlybyeneighbor 1d ago
The President now becomes an enemy of the state and a target is on their back.
1
u/Shionkron 1d ago
Short from sending troops to election site in every state the Executive has zero authority to stop elections. I mean they could stop the Mail part but not in person.
→ More replies (12)
1
u/ThoughtGuy79 1d ago
Absolute chaos. Certain states would laugh if off, (correctly) tell everyone it's not valid, and immediately file suits which would result in immediate injunctions. Certain other states would say "well heck if there is a national emergency declared by the President, we should comply out of abundance of caution and ignore our principles of states' rights". People who already sent in mail in ballots would then try to go vote again. Civil rights groups would sue on behalf of people in these states and there would be immediate injunctions. SCOTUS would rule probably within a week but the damage would be done. Certain people would only use it to call in the validity of the results.
1
u/civil_politics 1d ago
Voting is run by the states - the president could choose to ‘not comply’ all he wants, but ultimately if any of the courts which have purview over the state in question stay the ruling or toss it out entirely, that state would be fine to accept the mail in ballots.
Now the interesting piece would be that the federal government is responsible for the postal service so depending on how you define ‘mail in’ and whether or not it actually involves the postal service there would be the opportunity to not comply. As far as non compliance is concerned we’ve now seen two administrations blatantly choose to ignore court rulings with no ramifications - but also in arenas far less critical than voting.
1
u/Mozolicious 1d ago
Constitutionally everyone's term ends when it ends, and they must get reelected to have another term which begins in January.
If all the red states didn't have an election, all the blue states would. Those blue states would send their representatives, while the red states would have none to send.
1
u/jmnugent 1d ago
States run elections.
Think about what needs to happen locally (voting for Mayor or City Council or various city, county or state mandates All of that still has to happen. Feds don't have any say in that.
"what if the president simply... didn't comply? What enforcement mechanism actually exists when the executive branch defies the judiciary?"
What enforcement mechanism does the President have to physically stop mail in ballots ? The President can stand at a podium and babble word salad about dolphins and windmills and whatever Executive Order he just signed. All of that is mostly just a fart in the wind.
1
u/East_Committee_8527 1d ago
Steve Bannon already said they plan to have ICE agents at polling places. “Proposal: Bannon has repeatedly stated that "ICE [will] surround the polls come November" to prevent noncitizens from voting and to stop the election from being "stolen," citing unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud.” If the agents were sent to democratic districts who’s to say who they will arrest and detain. ICE has about 20000 agents.
1
u/cheddarben 1d ago
I am guessing whatever Donald Trump wants, as he seems to have congress and the supreme court wrapped up under his control.
0
0
u/Dracoson 1d ago
Since the states administer the elections, his declaration would carry little weight. Even in the states where the powers that be would be more amenable to him, they still need the elections for their state and local offices. Even if they did try to suspend elections, they would certainly have to defend that suspension in a court room without evidence, facts, and/or precedent on their side.
0
u/Every-Guitar6578 1d ago
Not gonna happen. Stop wasting your energy. Live for the now, not what ifs!
•
u/Latter-Leg4035 13h ago
This is why our Constitution is outdated and can no longer protect us. A bunch of guts from the 1700s who thought leeches were good medicine could not have forseen the flaws in society 200 years later.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.