"In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote." -- Trump, 7/27/24

Here's the plan.

The Insurrection Act of 1792.

On January 20, 2025, in addition to pardoning 1,500 violent criminals who were duly convicted by courts of law all across America, Republican Donald Trump commissioned the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security to report on whether and how the Insurrection Act of 1807 (originally enacted in 1792) may be invoked. Read the Executive Order here. The deadline for the report, which I believe is not merely an academic exercise, is a week from today, April 20.

The Insurrection Act grants the president the unilateral power to deploy the military to assist civilian law enforcement, by-passing other laws to the contrary. This can happen if:

1. A state legislature or governor asks for federal help in putting down an insurrection, a term that is not defined.

2. A state is refusing to enforce federal law or when conditions are such that the state cannot effectively enforce federal law.

3. It is necessary to enforce Constitutional rights in a state where a rebellion or conspiracy prevents citizens from exercising their rights.

President Lyndon Johnson used the Insurrection Act to enforce civil rights laws in southern states in the 1960’s. President George H.W. Bush used it in 1992 to help quell riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King beating by police there.

As one might expect from the date of the enactment, this law was meant for a much different time and circumstance from today. It is completely unaware of national and world events since then that make the case for amendment, and the Brennan Center for Justice, “a non-partisan law and policy institute,” has been advocating amendments for years. Click here for a 2022 explainer of the law’s history, uses and need for overhaul.

In short, the Brennan Center contends that the law is so vague that it can be used for nefarious purposes as well as legitimate ones. It also contends that the president’s power under the law is unchecked. The president alone has the power to impose it, and the judicial branch may not stop him. Those acting under its authority who commit crimes may be prosecuted for their actions, but no one can stop the president from invoking the Insurrection Act.

Chicken Little or Cassandra?

I confess to being a little paranoid when it comes to how Republicans govern, especially this Republican president. The past three months repeatedly have justified my perspective as both laws and Constitutional provisions are ignored daily. We are governed by a strategy of “shock and awe” that seeks to numb us to the insanity and illegality of what Republicans are doing so that they can do more of it without repercussion.

Nevertheless, my sense of alarm is challenged by those who note that the Executive Order places the report about the Insurrection Act in the context of an “emergency” at the southern border. Indeed, the title of the Executive Order is, “Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States.” The challengers contend that any invocation of the act would occur in that context, so there’s no need to worry about a national application of the law.

Yet the order also justifies the “emergency” on an assertion that, “Foreign criminal gangs and cartels have begun seizing control of parts of cities,…” It further asserts that this constitutes a threat to the entire United States.

Back to Voting.

This matters because of Trump’s promise that people will not have to vote again. I believe what he meant to say is that people – or enough of the wrong kind of people - won’t get to vote again.

I don’t think that Republicans will invoke the Insurrection Act on April 20. We’ll see soon enough. Rather, I think it is an arrow in their quiver. I believe they want this report as authority to invoke the act selectively in the spring of 2026 in order to suppress Democratic votes wherever Republicans are threatened with electoral defeat.

California is an obvious target. It has a southern border. Its cities may be said (by Republicans) to have been “invaded” by “criminal gangs and cartels.” Its Democratic governor is barred from seeking another term, creating an open seat. It may be that Republicans will decide that the emergency is so great that the military must “supervise” elections to exclude “illegals” and to make sure elections are safe for law-abiding citizens. If that supervision makes it difficult or impossible for large numbers of legal voters to cast their ballots, well there is “collateral damage” in every military operation. Can’t be helped.

And if Republicans allege that similar emergencies exist in every other major, or even minor, city, it’s hard to believe that Republicans will lose many statewide or federal elections, ensuring their grip on Congress.

Catch 22

Suppose citizens object. We can expect the demonstrations of last weekend, where millions of citizens objected to their government without a single arrest or act of violence, to explode exponentially. But that will allow Republicans to say, “See, there is an insurrection!” and clamp down even harder.

Heads Republicans win, tails democracy loses.

A Post-Truth Politics

When dealing with Republicans these days it is important to remember that the truth simply does not matter. Is there really an emergency at the southern border? Illegal crossings are down substantially today, but that does not matter. According to Republicans, we must have a zero-tolerance policy. Anything else constitutes an emergency.

Nor does legal precedent, which Republicans are working hard to overturn, seem to mitigate Republican behavior. The only good rule is one that can be broken without consequence.

We may have elections in 2026, but we should be prepared for a fight to make them free and fair.

P.S. The Insurrection Act distinguished from Martial Law

The term “martial law” has no legal definition. However, this will not deter Republicans from invoking martial law to enforce the Insurrection Act.

The distinction is that the Insurrection Act allows the military to “assist” civilian authorities. Martial law allows the military to “replace” civilian authorities.

My guess is that Republicans will invoke the Insurrection Act and martial law simultaneously and enjoy watching Democrats become distracted by trying to educate the public about the distinction.

What do you think? Chicken Little or Cassandra? Cast your vote as a comment.