Wayne Allyn Root is promoting a “National Emergency for Elections Declaration.” In his post, he argues that if Donald Trump declares a “National Security Emergency,” no court has jurisdiction to overturn it. He suggests that in INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court (indirectly) ruled that only a two-thirds vote of Congress can do that deed. That would include 67 Senators, and with more than 33 adamant that we need the SAVE America Act, that’s never happening. In short, Trump has the tools.
The problem comes after the declaration. How is it to be enforced? Lots of observers would be required, and immense amounts of video would be needed. The military might supply enough manpower, but that generally runs afoul of federal law. Could he divert FBI, U.S. Marshals, and DHS staff for a couple of days?
Maybe. 18 U.S. Code § 593 specifically restricts military personnel from “interfer[ing] in any manner with an election officer’s discharge of his duties.” But there is no statute blocking federal observers. The DOJ fact sheet clearly states that federal monitors “have a unique ability to help deter wrongdoing, defuse tension, promote compliance with the law and bolster public confidence in the electoral process.” There is even a process to request federal monitoring. In locales not under a court order mandating monitoring, staff members may be sent to “monitor the election in the field.”
A key to this process is that the AG must sue to get an order for observation and monitoring. Once an order is granted, the observers can be in “any place for tabulating the votes.” Obviously, a judge in the Eastern District of Michigan might bollix the plan to monitor in Detroit, for example.
This is a real problem but not insurmountable if one discounts the work of activist judges. It would be hard for Phoenix to rationally argue that observers who simply stand and watch aren’t permissible, but we can’t rule it out in the Ninth Circuit. In the meantime, the DOJ and RNC should recruit civilian observers who train and qualify for every trouble spot. Unfortunately, in most places, they will not be able to record the activity.
However, there can be cameras outside the polling facilities. We know that in 2020, at several polling locations, significant numbers of ballots arrived to be counted with no chain of custody. Maricopa County, Arizona, and Fulton and DeKalb Counties, Georgia, are perhaps the best documented.
Every entrance to counting—not voting—facilities can be put under 24-hour surveillance for days before and after the election. This would only monitor election officials, not private citizens or voters. It would be almost impossible to successfully challenge that, since video recording of state officers has already been held to be lawful. As long as a sight line exists, a camera can legally be employed.
The key to this surveillance is to do it without notice. Visit a month or two ahead and identify good camera placements. Place and test them weeks ahead and repeat that a couple of days ahead, putting them on 24-hour live recording. Such evidence would be nearly irrefutable, and bad actors who don’t know they are being monitored might be caught cheating. But there’s more...
Donald Trump just lost his Post Office ballot-mailing rule in the Supreme Court on procedural grounds. Supposedly he was “unlikely to succeed on the merits.” The Court also tacitly applied the Purcell decision, saying there would be too much disruption if states were required to make the ballot envelope changes this close to November 3. Justices Alito and Thomas rightly complained that the delay resulted from Democrat legal filibustering, so the rule should not have applied. But there are still tools at the Post Office.
First, in every state, ballots can only legally be sent to eligible registered voters. And since they are sent through the mail, the Post Office can curb a lot of fraud without interfering with local election administration. First, no ballots should ever be delivered to non-residential addresses unless those locations are known to be occupied and are where the occupant receives other mail. A warehouse or convenience store cannot be the legal residence of a voter. Jay Valentine has done yeoman’s work on this, demonstrating multiple times that large numbers of “registrations” are located at such locations.
Second, no ballot should ever be forwarded. If the recipient no longer occupies the address, he’s not lawfully registered there. Third, most ballots addressed to recipients at a rental complex without apartment numbers are not properly deliverable. Fourth, the Post Office scans every piece of mail already. A second ballot to the same person should be stopped. The key to making these an enforcement action is what the letter carrier must do next.
Because a ballot delivered to any of those improper addresses may be part of an act of election fraud, that ballot may be evidence of a crime. It must be either culled during the daily sort or retained during the delivery process. All legally undeliverable ballots must be returned to the local election office with instructions to be preserved for correction of voter rolls and retention as possible evidence. Also, it should be made clear to every postmaster that, if these processes are not followed, they and the letter carrier may become liable to criminal prosecution as accessories to election fraud.
It is virtually certain that many legally undeliverable ballots have instead been diverted to Democrat party facilities for “voting.” This means that one other key element, again fully within the Post Office’s authority, must happen. Every letter carrier must be “equipped” with a GPS tracker. It can be as simple as a tracking app on their cell phone with a requirement that the phone stay on their person while delivering mail. Live tracking will reveal unauthorized deliveries to Democrat ballot mills.
Can this be done in the short time remaining? Most assuredly, yes. Note that this doesn’t address the problem of non-citizens voting. That requires a different approach. Finally, every action listed here is unequivocally lawful and requires only direction from the President.
Will it fix everything? No. But we must not demand perfect when good is available. Better will come next time, as we discover new ways that bad actors try to subvert elections.
Ted Noel is a retired physician who posts on social media as Doctor Ted, @Vidzette on X, and occasionally does Doctor Ted’s Prescription podcast on multiple podcast channels.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.