So what you’re saying is that there is absolutely no legal or political mechanism by which elections can be postponed or nullified? Because if there are, then such actions could, by definition, be legal.
Well, in cases of blatant repeated unconstitutional actions by state governments, it has happened more than once that a Federal judge has stepped in and just started issuing orders. Which were obeyed. I know one took over the Texas prison system, the LAPD, and so on.
So clearly a judge can issue the order along with a statement explaining why the Presidents actions are definitely, 100% unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is unconstitutional and what isn’t. There is a long historical precedent of judges issuing orders directing actions and they usually get obeyed.
Most recently, Trumps executive order on immigration? You may have noticed that after a federal judge issued a restraining order - the relevant executive agencies such as Homeland Security did what the order said. Note that if you refuse to obey a judge’s lawful order, they can direct that you be hauled into court and can order you to be jailed. Even if you are the head of the CIA or homeland security. Just not the President, unfortunately.
The President’s term is constitutionally set at 4 years. So elections or not, the term ends and they’re no longer President.
My brief reading of the matter is that there’s no way for the Federal Government to stop elections. States could, theoretically, not send in electors. If no electors are sent in, the process breaks down and the 20th Amendment comes into play:
However, if even one state sends in electors then it kicks over to the house via the 12th Amendment:
The only way a president could cancel elections is if he ordered the army to go to every state and close down the polling stations at gunpoint, and people in the army followed his orders. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the law, and would be a coup where the president rules through military dictatorship.
Elections in the United States are held by the states. A state could decide to cancel or postpone elections, the Federal Government has no such power. There is no legal method for the president to cancel elections. Any attempt by the President to do so would be extralegal.
A couple of states cancelling elections doesn’t mean anything for the other states. Yes, Alabama could cancel elections, that doesn’t mean that New York must also cancel elections. However, the constitution does provide that all states must have a republican form of government, so cancelling elections permanently would violate the Constitution.
Before you judge whether a conspiracy theory happened or is possible, you first have to ask yourself if it makes any sense. And this theory fails that test.
Let’s look at the premises of the claim:
- There’s an alliance between the Republicans and the Russians.
- The Republicans want to stay in power after the 2020 election.
- The Russians have the means to rig the outcome of the election.
Given those three premises, does a simpler plan emerge? Why wouldn’t the Russians just rig the election to produce a Republican victory?
To me, this doesn’t sound like a liberal theory. It sounds like a conservative theory pretending to be a liberal theory. It sounds like something people would start saying if they knew that they were going to lose an upcoming legitimate election and wanted to cast doubts on the outcome. Not because that’s a step in their plan to overthrow the government. It’s something they’d say just because they want to deny how badly they’ve fucked up.
Republicans are seeing which way the wind is blowing and know they’re probably facing a record defeat in the upcoming election. They want to be able to attribute that defeat to a secret conspiracy than admit the American people just rejected them.
Look at their leader. Trump argued against the legitimacy of the last election and he won.
MOST recently, the supreme court of Pennsylvania took it upon itself to redistrict the state after finding that the legislature was incapable - or simply didn’t want to - redistrict within the bounds of the law. Not only did the state court set up new districts - clearly a legislature’s task - but the SCOTUS today elected on appeal to let that action stand.
Courts can, in extremis, assume a wide variety of powers. In the case we’re dealing with, I’d assume the court would inform the Joint Chiefs that the POTUS is commander in chief but THAT guy is no longer POTUS via some reasoning and they would be behaving illegally to follow his orders.
Apparently, due to the example of what happened on 9/11 in New York, elections could be postponed up to one day if there are planes flying into buildings or similar attacks going on and nobody knows where the next target is.
That might not be written into the laws, but it happened, and there was no outrage afterwards.
However, there is no emergency barring the truly apocalyptic which would postpone elections for an entire country like that, and any system which tried to do it for more than a day or small region would be one which was no longer bound by rules.
I remember hearing that Bill Clinton was going to do the same thing in 2000 after civilization came to a screeching halt due to the dreaded Y2K bug. Unless I missed something, though, that just didn’t happen.
The President can’t “declare martial law,” as such, but he can suspend habeas corpus, as Lincoln did several times during the Civil War - usually in specific regions, but at least once across the entire country IIRC. Lincoln allowed elections to go forward, however, even the one in 1864 which most people thought he was going to lose.