Allies of President Donald Trump are openly discussing martial law and other extraordinary federal action if they conclude that next month's midterm elections have been "rigged." The proposals come less than three weeks before Election Day and raise questions about what power a president actually has to intervene in elections. Under existing federal law, however, a president cannot simply declare martial law to postpone an election, seize ballots, or take control of state election systems. Axios reported Friday that prominent MAGA election activists have advocated extraordinary measures while warning of election-security problems they believe could emerge in November.
Axios noted that no evidence shows the elections will be rigged and that some proposed actions extend beyond Trump's legal authority. Peter Ticktin, an attorney for election activist Tina Peters and a childhood friend of Trump, said during a September 30 Rumble call for MAGA election activists that "there would have to be martial law in the event…[of] another rigged election." Ticktin subsequently told Axios that authorities would probably need to commandeer ballots and election equipment to investigate what happened before proceeding further. He told the Daily Beast that his proposal applied only to what he described as a "nightmare scenario" in which foreign interests took control of election equipment and affected the result.
Peters participated in the September 30 call and met with Trump this month, according to Axios. She was convicted in 2024 of crimes connected to a breach of election equipment before Colorado Governor Jared Polis commuted her sentence this year. Peters and Ticktin also visited Trump at the White House in late June.
Another participant, Gregory Stenstrom, advocated pausing the election over security concerns or, alternatively, using the National Emergencies Act to compel changes in how states administer elections. Peters has also promoted replacing voting machines with hand-marked paper ballots and, where possible, conducting manual recounts. Martial law generally describes an extraordinary situation in which military authority displaces civilian government in a particular location.
No federal statute defines the term, and the U.S. Constitution does not mention martial law. Supreme Court precedent on the subject is limited and largely dates to the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Brennan Center for Justice says federal and state officials have declared martial law at least 68 times in U.S. history. Under certain circumstances authorized by law, the military can assist civilian authorities while those institutions continue to function. Martial law traditionally describes the far more extreme step of military authorities taking the place of civilian ones, potentially including soldiers performing policing functions and military tribunals handling matters ordinarily heard by civilian courts.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
