Legal Scholars Say Street Resistance Essential If Trump Rejects '26 Results-State Has Power To Take Over Harris County Elections

Please CONTRIBUTE to the houston democracy project

​ I often say that voting is not going to be enough for the authoritarian, white supremacist crisis we face. (And most times I say this in individual conversation, or when speaking to groups I get agreement.) I talk often about the necessity of protest & building connection and networks with people you can trust to show up in a crisis. I believe the widespread, grassroots No Kings protests have been a big step in the right direction. 

There is an uncertain quality to what I'm saying. You can't quantify the impact of a protest or boycott in the same way you might be able to assess the outcome of an election. A strong example of where  the value of protest and taking to the streets was clear, was in December, 2024 when martial law was declared by the President of South Korea. If people had not showed up immediately in opposition, South Korea might still today face a civil liberties crisis. (Above is an Associated Press photo from the martial law crisis.) 

​The weekly John Cornyn Houston Office Protest I'm part of is important. We've been on Houston streets now for almost nine years. People count on seeing us, and appreciate that we stand openly and confidently for democracy no matter the aggression of the right. 

​Below is much of an article from the World Ahead In 2026 edition of The Economist. It was written by attorneys Jack Goldsmith and Bob Bauer. Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Bauer are law school professors who write often about the threat of Trump and the right to free and fair elections. 

If you don't read it all, be certain to read the last paragraph. These two experts and institutional figures express concern the military will be employed, and make clear that the last resort and best hope may well be people on the streets. 

Texas Republicans are already making noise about taking over the Harris County elections process in 2026. The state has already passed the legislation needed to take control of our elections. 

Here is the article:

.......The midterms will unfold amid long-held public distrust of the electoral process—distrust that Donald Trump has been actively stoking. More ominously, under the banner of defending “honest elections”, he appears to be laying the groundwork to challenge and possibly manipulate them. His words and actions strongly suggest he may use the formidable powers of the presidency—and possibly even the armed forces—to resist 2026 electoral results he dislikes.

In 2026, as in past elections, both parties can be expected to mount co-ordinated legal challenges in races they seem to be losing by alleging error, fraud or other irregularities, demanding recounts and contesting results in the courts. Yet such struggles could enter a whole new dimension owing to Mr Trump’s apparent readiness to use the redoubtable powers of the presidency to deny election results. Given the enormous stakes and his record of pushing every advantage at the legal margins and beyond, this prospect must be taken seriously.

At the core of Mr Trump’s plan is the heretical idea that, as he proclaimed on Truth Social, the states “must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, for the good of our country, to do.” This flies in the face of the constitution, which expressly allocates authority over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections to the states and to Congress, but makes no mention of a role for the president.

Yet Mr Trump has issued an executive order that claims presidential authority to impose on states his own view of the needed voting rules—including proof of citizenship, revised machine standards and limits on mail-ballot counting.

With this legal infrastructure and team in place, Mr Trump could order many kinds of federal intervention. As he did in 2020, but with a stronger hand, he could push officials to intervene in states, potentially seizing voting machines. He could use federal agencies to demand that states co-operate with his administration’s efforts to detect election fraud. He could intimidate election officials by ordering investigations of claimed irregularities.

But perhaps the gravest worry is that Mr Trump will deploy the armed forces under the Insurrection Act. It authorises the president to use such forces to “take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress” any “unlawful combination” or “conspiracy” that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States”. Mr Trump could claim his opponents are obstructing election laws and call in troops to enforce those laws in accordance with his wishes. Such deployments could occur before, during or after voting begins.

Much of the Trump plan outlined here would be either unlawful or legally controversial. The courts, including the Supreme Court, performed admirably to blunt Mr Trump’s legally deficient challenges to the 2020 presidential election. But political strong-arming and investigative tactics that aim to intimidate are hard to challenge in court.

The integrity of the 2026 election could thus, as in 2020, also depend on the fortitude of state and local officials who administer elections. And it would depend, ultimately, on how the American people react. A broad, highly visible public reaction could influence elected officials within Mr Trump’s party as they weigh the risks of complicity in any effort to subvert election results. In the darkest scenarios, such as the deployment of troops to jurisdictions where Republicans lose, the degree of responsible civic resistance could determine whether the nation’s voting institutions hold firm.

---

Please contribute to the houston DEMOCRACY project