No, Trump does not have the legal authority or the practical ability to “nationalize” US elections, for all the same reasons he also didn’t when he issued an executive order a few months ago abolishing mail in voting.

@mattblaze but I think it's clear enough now that absolutely any executive authority contingent on "emergency" conditions can and will be abused, now that impeachment is no longer a credible deterrent.

@mattblaze A vaguely related topic and question: how theoretically and practically possible is it for a state to leave the USA and become not united with the rest of USA?

I compare that UK left EU (I live in Sweden, EU).

One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.

This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.

@mattblaze the point that so many here have been making is that the laws may be good, and the system may be highly distributed, but those laws are worthless if the judicial and legislative branches keep rolling over in submission to the executive. We are becoming a country where might makes right, and it sickens me. /3

@mattblaze there's also some precedent for the Federal government dictating how states run elections: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I'm sure there are more than a few on the right that would love to use that precedent to takeover elections for their political motives. /4

@bmitch The voting rights act was an act of CONGRESS, which is not the executive branch (the part Trump runs). The fact that congress can make or alter election rules is literally in the text of the constitution.

The president has zero constitutional authority to run elections.

@bmitch "But they could amend the constitution to give him control over elections". Sure. They could amend the constitution to make Trump president and overlord for life, too.

But that's not something the president can do himself, either.

@mattblaze But if masked agents show up before the polls open, give a list of Republicans, order us to only allow those people to vote, tell us they know where we all live, and doing anything against their demands will result in masked agents busting in our doors at 3am to disappear us,... I'm not sure there are enough 60+ year old retirees willing to defy that. The few that resist may only result in their precinct being declared as invalid, which is just as good for this regime's goals. /2

@mattblaze Honest question:

What are the practical limits on these powers if Congress, the Supreme Court, and the entire Executive Branch is all aboard Trump's extralegal agenda?

One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.

This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.

@mattblaze what mechanism would govern one or two states' results being so obviously disrupted that they can't be verified? Is there an explainer for this kind of contingency you can point to that's reasonably correct? Or is there simply no plan, and it's just whichever states manage to send electors, that's it?

(Edit: autocorrecto)

@mattblaze Honest question:

What are the practical limits on these powers if Congress, the Supreme Court, and the entire Executive Branch is all aboard Trump's extralegal agenda?

@gabe For presidential elections see https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48309

@soatok that’s an extremely broad question. I’m specifically discussing Trump’s ability to nationalize elections (which aren’t run by the federal government).

@mattblaze And many of the things his administration have done are also illegal. That didn't impede him much.

"It's illegal for him to-" okay but who fucking enforces the law here?

In too many instances, the answer is, "People loyal to Trump." He has a literal cult following.

The scenario isn't broad:

1. Trump, via EO, demands the government to "nationalize" elections.
2. MAGA followers in key positions follow his orders, even if it's not a legal order, because that's the kind of people they are.

He doesn't need to win in 100% of districts to influence the electoral college outcome.

@bmitch @mattblaze Do you think Trump can find enough troops to do that simultaneously for tens (hundreds?) of thousands of polling places all over the country, keeping the troops there all day to be sure nobody sneaks through?

I agree with you about the slide toward might makes right, both that it is happening and that it is sickening. But might is limited by available resources.

@soatok about what? Some laws are easier for a president to violate than others. It’s easy for a president to make unlawful arrests of immigrants, because the executive branch has broad authority to enforce immigration laws. It’s harder for a president to take over a state election administration because he doesn’t control states.

@mattblaze Do I have this right?

There is no possible way for him to do illegal things here without controlling the state election administrations?

Even if most of their employees turn out to be MAGA loyalists willing to do his bidding?