How might the GOP keep the House after the 2026 midterms?

Politics & Elections
1

Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY), ranking member of the House Administration Committee was interviewed last week about how the House GOP leadership could keep control of the House by not seating new members who are Democrats. What’s the Worst Thing Trump Can Do in the Midterms? (gift link)

It basically boils down to Speaker Johnson firing the clerk of the House.

Federal law assigns the clerk of the House, the chamber’s chief legislative administrator, the job of assembling the roll of new members to be sworn in on Jan. 3, 2027.

The current clerk is Kevin McCumber, who was chosen for the job in 2023 by Kevin McCarthy, then the speaker. But Mr. McCumber previously served in the clerk’s office under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and he is generally regarded as nonpartisan.

…

One disaster scenario, according to Mr. Morelle, would be this: After results show the Democrats winning a majority in the House, the president declares that the election is full of fraud and the winners don’t need to be certified. Mr. Trump could then demand that Speaker Mike Johnson fire Mr. McCumber, which Mr. Johnson has the legal right to do.

Under the procedures of the House, the speaker can install a more compliant successor — that is, a G.O.P. toady. In this scenario, Mr. Johnson’s designee, at Mr. Trump’s instigation, would produce a roll of new House members that included Republicans in races that Democrats believed they had won.

So the current House of Representatives is out of business at noon on Jan. 3 after the election. As of then none of its 435 members remain in office.

What would normally happen is for the clerk to go to the House with the roll of newly elected representatives. These people are not yet official members of Congress, but they have the task of electing a speaker of the House. The winner of the race for speaker then swears in the rest of the members of the House, and then they can begin conducting legislative business.

So what if Johnson fires McCumber and installs a MAGA toady as the new clerk? Well, Morelle is preparing strategy for such a situation. It would involve a lot of lawsuits and Morelle remains hopeful about the outcome of such a series of events.

The American people, I think, are not going to just sit by while an election which has given a Democratic majority of the House is taken away by some subterfuge that involves a removal of the sitting clerk and an acting clerk put in his place, who happens to be an election denier.

Will Trump run for another term as President?
Will Trump run for another term as President?
2

I don’t think so.

Trump spends money that wasn’t appropriated, and refuses to spend money that was. So having congressional majorities is not as important to him as a normal president.

He probably figures a Democratic house (or senate) would pass unpopular bills he could blame on socialists, or in his words, radical left lunatics. If the Senate is also controlled by the Democrats, and they end the filibuster, he can do a veto-rama. And then what? Democrats can close the government, and Trump can then re-open whichever parts of it he prefers.

What is important for Trump is to have a Republican presidential successor. I am more worried about January 6, 2029 than January 3, 2027.

3

I pretty much disagree.

The protest signs would mention stealing the House, but I don’t think protests would become larger because of some issue with seating members of a legislature.

Basically, the American people would just sit by.

SCOTUS? Maybe they would stop it after a year or so.

4

“I don’t think so.” WTF is that referring to?

Your first reply makes me think you didn’t even read the linked article. For what it’s worth I’m going to pay attention to what a Democrat in the House who is involved in the administration of the House has to say. Morelle is laying out HOW Johnson and other House Republicans could prevent the seating of Democrats who won election. You failed to address a single one of the things he brought up.

It is not a new thing to have concerns DJT/MAGA will find a way to screw with the results of the midterms if it looks like they will lose the House.

5

“How might the GOP keep the House after the 2026 midterms?”

Specifically, I was referring to the idea that the GOP might keep the House even though they legitimately lost.

I suppose it is plausible that Mike Johnson would install a partisan GOP clerk. I just do not think they would refuse to seat members legitimately elected.

One reason – Mike Johnson would only do it if Trump ordered it. And, as I wrote, I do not think Trump will order it.

What about the Senate? If the GOP is evil enough to steal House seats, why not the Senate? Trump would care more about that because of wanting to get appointees into jobs.

6

Again, did you read the linked article? It mentions doing something similar in the Senate is not an option because the rules don’t allow it.

Johnston is a Christian Nationalist toady who I believe will do anything to protect his position.

And asking IF the GOP is evil enough to do this shows you haven’t been paying attention the last 2 years.

7

Any successful attempt to subvert democracy in a manner this extreme would mean the end of the United States of America due to secession, mass defections, and civil war. It’d essentially be a declaration that the Union has been dissolved and the people will now have their representatives imposed on them instead of getting to elect them.

8

I agree with what you are saying here but, like Morelle I do think the courts would not allow this to stand.

9

The rules don’t allow it in either chamber. That’s why courts, even SCOTUS, wouldn’t like it.

I’m not criticizing Joe Morelle. Even if the risk is low, the harm if the Trumpers push this one hard is so bad that is right to work the potential problem.

As for the Senate being a continuing body, I do not totally understand why that makes it easier. Now, the leader of the House being more of a toady than of the Senate is a real big factor.

A reason it may not happen: The chamber Trump would care more about going Democratic, the Senate, is where Donald has less control.

10

And you are wrong yet again - the rules of the House do allow for the removal of the clerk of the House by the Speaker. That would allow the Speaker to appoint a new clerk who would be able to compile a list of members who should be sworn in…Jeez, I’m repeating things that ARE IN THE ARTICLE I LINKED!

DID YOU READ IT?

11

And again you have it wrong - articles of impeachment come from the House. That is a big concern for DJT even though there would be almost no chance of conviction in the Senate. He has been vocal about another impeachment happening.

12

It said Johnson would have to have a closely divided House vote in the new clerk:

“While the speaker does have the unilateral power to remove the clerk, his choice for a permanent replacement would have to be approved by a vote of House members.”

Is your point that it is hopeless? Or just that there is going to be a big news cycle here and then Johnson and Trump loses?

13

Which, if it didn’t conform to the writs of election issued by the states,.would be fraudulent and invalid.

14

He likes to create situations in which he can paint himself as the victim, that’s for sure.

Whether he actually dislikes being tried and then winning is a pure matter of opinion. Mine is – no.

15

I never said hopeless nor did Morelle. Just that it is a possibility of shenanigans they could pull.

And the idea the House wouldn’t approve the change just because the numbers are close ignores the way House members have largely marched in lockstep to do what DJT wants.

And yes @Smapti it would be ruled fraudulent and invalid by the courts if it didn’t conform to the writs of election issued by the states. But in reading the linked article I’m sure you noticed the part referencing how multiple election boards in different states refused to certify votes in 2020. Morelle points out this would likely be shot down in court (like they were in 2020) but hey, it would still result in disarray and confusion about the results. Again, not that this would succeed but it would be a way the MAGAnuts could fuck with the midterms.

16

The article the Times quotes notes that all those refusals were unsuccessful.

So far, states have shut down these dangerous efforts to sabotage the certification process—including in Arizona and New Mexico where state authorities secured emergency court orders, called writs of mandamus, compelling county officials to follow the law…

That election certification is a ministerial, non-discretionary function has been a settled principle of American election law since the turn of the twentieth century, when state courts across the country shut down partisan attempts by county officials to refuse to count lawful votes.

17

As I said in my last post. But it doesn’t mean they won’t try again. And again.

But Morelle’s point is that a MAGA House clerk could compile a list of GOP candidates who lost and offer it up as genuine so they could vote in the new Speaker, presumably Johnson. The new Speaker would then swear in all the “new” members.

YES, it would likely be ruled fraudulent by the courts but given the reluctance of SCOTUS and other Federal courts to get involved in “political” questions, who knows.

18

And that would be the end of the House of Representatives, the Republican Party, and the United States of America. Once you’ve declared that the government is no longer elected by the people but instead imposed upon them from above and the states are federal subjects instead of co-sovereign partners the inevitable result is going to be Soviet-style collapse and Balkanization.

19

Yes, that is the current threat we are dealing with.

20

If you want to go dark here, SCOTUS may be out of the picture. Taking the Constitution literally, Marbury v. Madison does not apply. From Article 1, Section 5:

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members . . . "

In the ordinary course of human affairs, powerful people do not willingly give up power. So there would be a tendency for SCOTUS to find a way to ignore the clause I quote above. Arguably, they did it in Powell v. McCormack. But if the Republicans on SCOTUS want an excuse to keep GOP control of the House, they could reverse any contrary past rulings and say that congressional election cheating is none of their business.

If the Republicans tried that, they risk dicta, in the SCOTUS ruling allowing House election cheating, saying that presidential elections [b]are[/i] their business.

I may be wrong here, but I do not think the Republicans will risk a constitutional crisis over something as relatively unimportant as House control when their president mostly ignores the law. I think it more likely that the GOP will wait until the presidential cycle to anoint a clear loser as the winner.

Sure, it is hard to guess the future. All predictions here should be qualified as being with low confidence.