One conspiracy theory/fear I’ve seen in liberal circles is that Russia will make blatant efforts to interfere in November’s elections in favor of Democrats, nullifying those results and giving Trump an excuse to “postpone elections until we figure out what’s going on and how to safeguard our democratic process.”
What I want to know is, whose authority would such a decision fall under, on the state or national level? What, if any, limits exist on their power? How many people are necessary to decide that an election’s results are tainted and “don’t count,” or to say that there won’t be elections in a year they’re supposed to be?
I can guess that there’s no one on the planet who can authoritatively answer this question, because though there are sure to be laws, they’ve never been tested in this particular way. Knowing the law is not the same as knowing who will do what when.
Yeah, this is a theory that bugs me (at least as I’ve heard it presented as Trump just declaring there’s been interference and there will be no elections). As I understand it, it doesn’t work that way because elections are held by states, not the federal government. Not to mention lawsuits and so forth. But I’ll wait for someone with more in-depth knowledge and skill to explain it. Because I really only have a basic understanding and don’t want to get my information wrong.
Many times (most of the time I guess) Trump begins by floating an extremely simplistic plan, and later that plan is somehow brought into line with reality. This is not likely to be an exception.
These ideas were floated in 2008, when it was Bush who was going to suspend elections, then in 2012 and 2016, when Obama was going to suspend elections, and they’ve never had any traction among anyone outside of the stupidest conspiracy theorists, the ones who likely believed them all three times because they’re also the kinds of people who listen to Alex Jones, who’s never had a single original idea in his life, either.
This isn’t about technicalities. Technicalities don’t postpone or nullify elections. A dead political system does that, and dead political systems don’t run on technicalities. To be clear: A political system is dead when it isn’t running on rules, but on the fiat of the people who have the political upper hand at the moment. We largely grew out of that when the Political Machines were destroyed by Good Government, and if you don’t know what I’m talking about by all means feel free to rant about how nothing’s ever changed and everything is the same as it was in 1890.
The point is, this is an old conspiracy theory which is revived every single cycle and has absolutely nothing behind it. It is a lie. Why is it so hard for some to accept that people lie? Why do some people apparently believe that lies have something solid behind them?
Consider the characters of Bush, Obama, and Trump. One of these is not like the others. It hardly makes sense to guess what Trump, or Republicans supporting Trump, might do based on prior Presidents.
Yes, elections are run by state governments. But there are several state governments presently run by Republicans where the Democrats expect excellent results in 2018. The GOP will certainly be “pulling out the stops” with voter suppression and other chicanery, including post-count litigation. Odds are against them actually cancelling or nullifying an election, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did. Who would object? The emasculated FBI? The “lying media”? Certainly Trump himself has demonstrated complete contempt for law and decency. Many state government are run by decent politicians, but not all.
If the president decides to suspend elections or not honor the results, the case would be rushed to the supreme court. (basically anyone in the USA could claim standing).
If the Supreme Court ruled against the President, it (or lower courts) would issue court orders directly to military leaders in the USA directing them to remove the president from power/hold free elections.
In turn, those military leaders swore an oath to the Constitution above that of the President, so in theory they would listen to the Supreme Court over the president. Although, I just checked, the President has to sign the promotion order for any new generals. In theory he could pick generals he thought would support him in a coup.
Probably lots of other holes in the system. Like the saying goes, Hitler’s rise to power was perfectly legal…
The simple answer is that there’s no federal person who has the power to postpone an election. It would be one of those ‘the federal government has the power the courts allow it’ things. But I have trouble imagining the courts going along with such. The vast majority of judges know they derive their authority from the constitution and overthrowing it would be their eventual removal.
What if the president declares martial law?
(Abraham Lincoln did so, but I think it was very limited and he only declared certain laws to be revoked)
What would happen if there was a massive attack on the US in November, 3 days before the election? Something that creates genuine chaos, and enough social instability that the standard procedures for running an election would be impossible to carry out?
During the cold war, lots of top brass were concerned about doomsday situations.
And on Sept 11, lots of ordinary citizens had good reason to join in the concerns.
And now we’ve got North Korea. The fun never stops !
Now, I’ve never bothered to worry too much about this ,but surely somebody has.
Since laws do not enforce themselves, who would have the authority to bring a case to which court in case such an event happens and a majority of Congress decides to let it slide?
Also, is the postponement still in effect while this winds it way through the court(s)?
If a President declares martial law doesn’t that automatically suspend the Constitution for the time it’s in force? Could a President then forbid all elections until martial law were lifted? Martial law clearly supersedes the Constitution otherwise there’s little point to it.
I am not sure if any state has a law with procedures in place to delay an election. as noted upthread New York state did postpone a primary election which was scheduled for Sept 11, 2001.
And there has previously been rumblings that perhaps an ill timed natural disaster such as a hurricane could tip turnout in key parts of a state and thus swing an election. Imagine a strong hurricane hitting the Miami area on election day. Given this region of south florida tilts heavily democratic a reduced turnout due to a storm could tip the entire presidential election.
And outside the United States I am aware of the scheduled November 2004 elections in the Cayman Islands being postponed due to the Sept 11, 2004 landfall of a category 4 hurricane. Hard to run an election when everyone is still digging out from a storm and lining up at water distribution points. Yes, it resulted in the then-current administration being extended six months but there was little complaint. And now elections are held in May, well before hurricane season.
ETA: It was well within the power of the UK-appointed governor to delay the elections in this way.
Even if the President or some Governors suspended/canceled elections, what about the states that didn’t? If all the blue states went ahead and held elections anyway and elected electors to the Electoral College-then went ahead and sent in their votes to Congress, what then? Congress and the President would be in a position of ignoring the results-which presumably they would do even if an election was held normally and they didn’t like the result. But if a group of states, lets call them red states, chose to not elect Electors-that is suspend/cancel elections-then the constitution says “The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;” and if that be the case, what then? Obviously if the Senate refuses to open the Lists from the states, then stalemate. But that is what it would take to suspend elections. Issuing an executive order isn’t going to stop California or New York-or Texas, from holding a vote if they want to, nor would it prevent the Senate and House from meeting.
That’s exactly what happened in 1864. Call them Grey states cancelled the elections and didn’t appoint any electors, so Lincoln won an election solely from call them Blue states.
I answered that, when I said that a system which suddenly refuses to hold elections isn’t a system bound by laws, so no analysis of the laws would hold.
