I’ve already addressed this. Mail-in ballots, by definition, go through the mail.
Could Trump effectively order the state governments not to use mail-in voting? Probably not. They would refuse his order and he wouldn’t be able to enforce it.
Could Trump order the Post Office not to deliver mail-in ballots? I think he could. I think if he gave the orders to the Post Office, it would be generally followed. It might be legally challenged and he might eventually lose in court. But I don’t think that would happen before the election was over and he got what he wanted. And when it’s all over, Trump issues himself a pardon and doesn’t face any consequences.
I disagree that the Postal Service will go along with such an order. The thing is, postal voting is really popular at the Post Office. There’s been a big drop in first class mail over the last 20 years, but one of the few (possibly the only) things that has countered this trend is the rise in mail-in voting. So the Postal Service sees it as an affirmation that they’re still an essential service.
I’ll agree with HMS Irruncible and friedo in that the president can’t just outright stop mail-in voting. Even if he had the direct legal authority to interfere in this way, it might actually be counter-productive to actually try following through with that idea. The reasons for not doing it range from immediate court challenges and injunctions to bad optics - people of all stripe wouldn’t like the thought of having their mail messed with.
But that wouldn’t necessarily keep him from drafting or declaring an executive order is in effect, which would at minimum sow confusion. Even that would be risky, IMO, though the fact that it’s risky or that it would backfire wouldn’t keep him from actually trying it - never assume politicians behave rationally.
My guess is that he’ll attempt something less dramatic but potentially just as effective - tactics such as withholding money from the USPS, withholding money from states with Democratic governors, “monitoring” polling stations, using the AG to threaten federal prosecution of community organizing - these are all easily doable.
You addressed this with a false argument. As I keep pointing out, Trump cannot make mail-in ballots illegal. I am speaking here to the narrow phrasing of making a given thing legal or illegal. Executive orders cannot do this, and any that are thusly phrased are obviously illegal and could be easily ignored or challenged.
You could think that, but you’re wrong unless you can show any plausible mechanism by which that might happen. The President doesn’t have direct control over the postal service like, say, the Department of Justice.
This argument needs more than “Trump can do anything he wants and run the clock out in the courts.” Yes, we know he does that, the question is, does a plausible strategy for that exist in every given case? The answer is not always an automatic “yes”.
We’re talking about different things. You’re arguing about whether it would be legal or illegal. (I agree it would almost certainly be illegal.) I’m arguing about whether or not it would happen.
This is the man who famously said he could shoot somebody in public and get away with it. He wasn’t saying it would be legal for him to murder somebody; he was just saying he could get away with doing something illegal.
The Post Office is controlled by a Board of Governors, who are appointed by the President subject to Senate approval. The board is supposed to have eleven members but the Trump administration hasn’t bothered keeping them filled. Four of the six current members have been appointed by Trump. The other two members, Obama appointees, have announced their retirements this month.
So Trump already owns the board and he and the Senate have the option of appointing some more people whenever they choose to. Do you really believe the Post Office is some independent agency that Trump has no control over?
Trump’s phone call to Ukraine was clearly criminal. He has probably committed treason with his Putin conversations. Dropping charges against Michael Flynn, who had pled guilty, is gross malfeasance. Trump and his inner circle are Alex Jones fans and have bought into fantasies like the pizza-shop sex dungeon. Several key associates of Trump have been convicted of felonies; the GOP is now brazenly bragging about its plans to subvert elections. Trump has encouraged lawbreaking against (and denied covid-19 aid to) Governors who don’t support him. The list goes on and on.
He who needs to get a grip is the one who laughably compares Trump’s real crimes with the pizzeria fantasy.
You specifically used the verbiage of legality in your original question, so that’s what I’m responding to.
If he declares them illegal, this will be quickly and easily overruled in court because executive orders do not have any constitutional force to make law or declare anything illegal. This is an important point because it doesn’t involve any murky points of law. The president simply has no authority to do the thing that you said.
But okay. If you want to discard the theory you raised, we can just argue the theory “he can just do stuff”. Fair enough. He has and he can. Let’s move onto that.
I know the Post Office is an independent agency that is under much more indirect control of the President than most other executive agencies. I know it is self-financing. I know that Trump is obsessed with some Post Office Policies such as rates, and hasn’t done anything but tweet angrily about it.
Does Trump have a wizard-like ability to corrupt agencies that seem above corruption? Sure. Am I willing to say he has the Post Office in his pocket and can do as he will? Given the current state of affairs, this seems like conspiracy-theory type of thinking, and I’d have to ask if you have anything beyond speculation on that front.
For the sake of the argument (and putting aside whether it benefits the red or the blue), Trump orders ballots seized. This is done and someone carts them off while the law abiding are getting their injunction.
Naturally, as it’s illegal the seizure is over-ruled and the ballots are ordered returned and counted.
In the meantime, they have been “lost” or otherwise tampered with to benefit the Republicans - what happens then?
I didn’t say they would be illegal. I said Trump might declare them to be illegal. The former would require actual laws and court decisions. The latter would only require that Donald Trump be willing to say something that might not be true.
Is your argument based on the premise that Trump wouldn’t tell a lie?
What court would that be? Have you looked at the membership of the Supreme Court?
Executive orders have been used by Presidents throughout our history. Washington used them. Lincoln used them. Franklin Roosevelt used them like crazy; he issued over three thousand of them. Are you saying that they’ve been illegal all this time and nobody noticed?
Did I say Trump has wizard-like abilities? No.
Did I say Trump would need wizard-like abilities? No.
Did I say that Trump has the power to appoint the people who control the Post Office and he has left several vacancies in those positions which he can fill when he wishes? Yes, I said that.
I guess you couldn’t think of a good rebuttal to that last one so you went with the wizard stuff instead.
I have been quite clear that if Trump says a certain type of mail is illegal, this is a flimsy legal theory that would be easily shot down in court because it is transparently unconstitutional for him to declare anything legal or illegal.
Probably a Federal circuit court, where Trump has lost most cases where he sues or has been sued.
:rolleyes: Please quote where I said that, and/or stop this lame practice of putting words in my mouth.
Strawman arguments merit no rebuttal.
I’ll restate my position one final time. Trump can state whatever he likes in an executive order and attempt to enforce it. If he predicates it on a flimsy legal theory that a currently lawful practice (such as absentee voting) is now illegal, that theory is so obviously unconstitutional that it will be rapidly challenged and defeated in court. As an example, look at what happened with his travel bans. Those were considerably more complicated and still got shot down rapidly.
If you want to argue that thesis, or bring your own thesis, fine, but I’m done with your evading debate by emitting a cloud of insincere questions.
I think what friedo and Irruncible are asking is, by what mechanism can anyone other than the USPS just seize mailed ballots? Moreover, the USPS won’t just automatically respond directly to an order by the President. I suppose they could seize ballots through the Postmaster General and the Board, who are appointed by the president, and who could (maybe, not sure) direct the activities of the postal inspectors, but I’m thinking that they would personally be coming close to breaking postal regulations and federal laws if they did (I am not a lawyer, but I believe friedo is, so he could clarify).
It would be far easier to play games with funding and threaten the organizations that are coordinating voting efforts of all types, including but not limited to mail-in voting. I see that coming, actually.
This should be dismissed unless they can demonstrate that it violates California statutes - states, not the fed, have the power to manage their own voting processes. There’s no federal statute I know of that prohibits the USPS from being used to vote unless fraud is suspected.
Let me just point out the obvious here… when I mention Trump’s talent for finding ways to corrupt people and institutions, I was preemptively conceding a point of argument to you. Yes, he does have that talent, yes at times I find it almost wizard-like, yes I agree it shouldn’t be underestimated. It’s odd that instead of gracefully accepting that concession, you want to pick at the verbiage a bit more.
Agreed, but with a caveat. He could declare mail-in voting to be illegal, and then AG Barry could add some federal muscle behind the declaration, with messaging directed at specific populations that have faced political and legal harassment (i.e. people of color). Not saying it would happen, but that is a very real possibility.
The list of contingent outcomes is large, and many of them rest on actions in Congress and state legislatures. These outcomes are out of his hands and introduce a degree of uncertainty that I don’t think Trump would find worth risking.
Running out the clock does not work in this scenario. If the presidential election has not been certified by Congress on January 20th, 2020, Trump’s presidential term is over. By the constitutional line of succession, the office devolves on the Speaker of the House, now held by Nancy Pelosi. Again, I’m not in Trump’s head, but I can’t imagine that he wants this to happen.
In short… the 2020 election is where the “run out the clock” strategy favors Biden, not Trump. Control rests with Congress and the state legislatures, not Trump.
It’s true that a cornered wounded animal will do anything, but I cannot see Trump or the Republicans pursuing a path that takes that introduces so many unknowns that they don’t control.
For in-person voting, voter intimidation is a very real factor in every election. I think mail-in voters are a lot more protected from this because it’s done anonymously from the home. That protection is probably a big factor in Trump’s hatred of voting by mail.
I think it’s highly likely that Trump will make a serious attempt at disrupting the electoral process, and I don’t know what I personally am going to to about it. Keeps me up at night for sure.