Will
we
actually
have
Midterm
elections
next
year?
That
was
the
question
posed
to
three
veteran
conservative
election
law
experts
last
week
and
they
unanimously
agreed
that
there
would
be
elections…
and
that
they
probably
would
not
be
free
and
fair.
These
aren’t
crazies
who
thought
2020
was
fixed
by
Venezuelan
Jewish
space
lasers.
These
are
sober-minded
experts
who
believe
America’s
election
procedures
are
historically
among
the
best
in
the
world,
and
they
are
telling
us
that
they’re
not
sure
we’re
gonna
stay
that
way.
There’s
really
nothing
that
prepares
you
to
hear
serious
people
describe
a
dystopian
sci-fi
plot
as
a
reality
that
could
slam
into
the
country
like
a
wrecking
ball
by
this
time
next
year.
The
election
law
panel
at
the Society
for
the
Rule
of
Law
summit was
one
of
the
most
terrifying
hours
you
can
spend
outside
of
a
midnight
Exorcist
showing.
All
the
more
horrifying
because
nothing
could
be
dismissed
as
anything
but
a
calm
recitation
of
the
explicit
and
implicit
threats
to
election
integrity
emanating
from
the
darker
corners
of
the
White
House.
Moderated
by
former
Maricopa
County
Recorder
Stephen
Richer,
who’s
spent
the
last
five
years
having
QAnon
boomers
call
him
“traitor”
on
Facebook,
the
panel
featured
Campaign
Legal
Center
and
former
FEC
chairman
Trevor
Potter,
former
Scalia
clerk
Richard
Bernstein,
and
Matt
Germer
of
the
R
Street
Institute,
all
calmly
walking
through
the
various
2026
midterms
like
hospice
chaplains
for
democracy.
Democrats
seem
positively
optimistic
by
comparison.
What
a
difference
an
election
can
make!
Everyone
agreed
that
the
2024
general
election
marked
a
resounding
success.
Bernstein
noted
that
the
only
effort
to
steal
an
election
in
2024
came
from
the
Republicans
on
the
North
Carolina
Supreme
Court,
and
a
Republican
federal
district
judge
shut
it
down.
Local
election
infrastructure,
having
girded
itself
against
the
loony
allegations
after
2020,
has
become
more
professionalized,
more
networked,
and
more
resilient.
And
yet,
there’s
a
new
posse
in
charge
in
D.C.
and
they
have
the
motive
and
opportunity
to
wreak
havoc
upon
2026.
“The
election
deniers
have
profited,”
Bernstein
explained
when
asked
about
the
worst
case
scenario
of
federal
shenanigans.
“Pam
Bondi.
Speaker
Johnson.
Basically,
everybody
in
leadership
at
the
Justice
Department
and
the
FBI,
were
prominent
election
deniers.
They
emerged
from
obscurity
by
being
election
deniers.
Do
I
think
they
will
do
anything
in
their
power?”
While
we
worry
about
Trump
laying
the
groundwork
to
put
cities
under
martial
law
in
the
lead
up
to
elections,
Bernstein
warned
that
the
threat
isn’t
limited
to
troops.
“Do
you
remember
when
he
fired
the
BLS
commissioner
because
he
didn’t
like
the
numbers?”
Bernstein
asked.
“A
phone
call
to
Ed
Martin,
Dan
Bongino,
and
Kash
Patel…
‘Put
200
people
in
vans,
seize
the
ballots.
We
think
it’s
illegal
to
keep
counting
those
ballots.’
Do
we
think
that
any
of
those
three
people
would
say,
‘Sorry,
Mr.
President,
we
don’t
have
the
authority
unilaterally
—
we
can
go
to
court
and
ask
for
a
ruling,
we
don’t
have
the
authority
unilaterally
on
our
behalf
to
go
to
seize
the
ballots.’
They
will
seize
the
ballots
in
my
view.”
So
far,
the
White
House
hasn’t
taken
any
steps
to
set
that
up,
but
the
panel
feared
that
the
administration’s
early
election
law
maneuvers
amount
to
a
canary
in
the
coal
mine.
It
took
until
March
25th
for
the
administration
to
issue
its
“Preserving
and
Protecting
the
Integrity
of
American
Elections”
executive
order.
That
order
took
aim
at
the
National
Voter
Registration
Act
by
requiring
documented
proof
of
citizenship
instead
of
attestation
and
prohibits
states
from
accepting
mail
ballots
postmarked
on
Election
Day,
which
would
impact
a
majority
of
states.
“This
may
be
the
rare
instance
when
people
drafting
executive
orders
actually
looked
at
the
Constitution,”
Potter
explained.
“And
that
may
be
why
it
took
a
while
to
produce
a
cobbled
together
order,
because…
the
Constitution
is
pretty
clear
on
this
subject:
There
is
no
mention
of
a
role
for
the
president.”
Still,
the
administration
tried
its
hand
with
this
order
and
Potter’s
Campaign
Legal
Center,
among
others,
immediately
challenged
it.
Multiple
courts
have
blocked
it
and,
for
now,
the
order
itself
is
a
“dead
letter,”
as
Potter
described
it,
but
he
warned
that
it
could
still
end
up
working
its
way
into
the
law
through
state
action
by
local
GOP
government.
But
here’s
where
things
get
dark.
Potter
was
explicit,
“I
think
it’s
important
to
understand
that
this
executive
order
is
the
first
shoe
to
drop.
This
is
a
president
who
is
clearly
determined
to
affect
the
results
of
the
midterm
elections
using
the
powers
of
the
federal
government,
including
powers
he
does
not
have.”
As
for
postmarking,
Bernstein
—
who
deadpanned
that,
as
a
Scalia
clerk,
he
was
“taught
to
read”
—
explained
that
the
the
word
“choosing”
means
an
election
happens
when
voters
cast
their
ballots,
not
when
election
officials
receive
them.
He
has
30
more
pages
of
support
for
this
in
his
back
pocket
too.
And
yet,
the
Fifth
Circuit
disagrees,
setting
up
the
most
worrying
sentence
for
the
rule
of
law
in
2025:
“it’s
teed
up
for
the
Supreme
Court.”
Ultimately,
the
White
House
might
not
even
need
to
fiddle
with
the
election
process
itself
in
order
to
undermine
the
midterms.
Mike
Johnson
continues
his
refusal
to
seat
Adelita
Grijalva,
who
was
elected
to
the
House
over
a
month
ago.
The
immediate
impetus
for
this
move
is
to
stave
off
adding
the
final
vote
that
would
put
a
demand
to
release
the
Epstein
files
over
the
top
—
something
Donald
Trump
seems
curiously
obsessed
with
preventing
—
but
the
panel
worried
that
it
could
set
the
stage
for
a
doomsday
option.
After
midterms,
the
outgoing
House
is
not,
theoretically,
the
judge
of
who
gets
seated.
But
if
the
incoming
House
remains
narrowly
under
Johnson’s
control,
he
could
employ
this
tactic
to
keep
duly
elected
Democrats
out
of
their
seats.
And
should
that
elevate
to
the
Supreme
Court,
Germer
gamed
out
what
happens,
“Imagining
that
scenario
where
the
lawsuit
takes
place,
and
the
solicitor
general
comes
forward
and
says,
we
agree
that
these
results
in
California
can’t
be
trusted.
We
don’t
think
that
these
people
should
be
seated.
And
you
find
the
Chief
Justice
and
his
colleagues
sitting
around
looking
at
each
other
and
thinking,
‘If
we
write
an
order,
saying
that
you
must
see
them,
and
it
gets
ignored,
what
is
that
going
to
mean
for
our
institution?’”
In
response,
Bernstein
warned
that
if
the
Supreme
Court
sits
that
out,
there’s
really
nothing
they
won’t
they
sit
out.
“If
they
[the
Supreme
Court]
allow
people
duly
elected,
certified
in
their
states,
not
to
become
members
of
Congress,
then
the
game’s
over.
The
game’s
over.
Then,
then
we’re
not
at
the
opposition.
We’re
the
resistance.
And
I’m
too
chicken
to
be
the
resistance,”
he
said.
It
got
a
big
laugh,
but
it
was
the
sort
of
laughter
you
offer
when
you’re
too
beaten
down
to
cry.
The
panelists
did
offer
some
hope.
Germer
feels
the
appeal
to
Americana
that
will
coincide
with
the
nation’s
250th
anniversary
might
trigger
an
upsurge
in
respect
for
civic
duty.
“In
general,
Americans
do
not
like
post-election
day
subversions,”
Bernstein
said.
“I
think
that
was
true
in
2020.
And
I
think
there
will
be
broad
pushback
across
the
society.
If
some
of
the
things
that
I’m
worried
about,
like
seizing
ballots
start
to
happen.”
Meanwhile,
Potter
took
advantage
of
the
last
word
to
say
that
we
are
all
better
off
understanding
the
nature
of
this
threat
now,
a
year
in
advance.
Which
is
all
to
say,
even
the
hope
didn’t
do
much
to
make
the
panel
any
less
scary.
Happy
Halloween.
Earlier:
Rule
Of
Law
Conservatives
Awkwardly
Embrace
#Resistance
District
Judges
Fight
To
Save
The
Rule
Of
Law
While
DOJ
And
Supreme
Court
Snicker
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.