Ossoff: "Among today's false prophets are the election deniers who indulge this president's obsession with overturning the 2020 election. Hear me when I say this — they tell a lie so absurd, and therefore so debasing, that the act of telling it proves the teller's total and humiliating submission."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) February 16, 2026 at 12:22 PM
Yeah this is kind of key. There isn't really an executive order that the president can sign that meaningfully changes election administration. Basically what he can do is direct the FEC to work with states to change things (or something) and maybe impose penalties somewhere if they don't?
— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) February 16, 2026 at 10:30 AM
It’s not wrong to keep highlighting Trump’s feckless rhetoric, but it’s foolish to succumb to doomerism about it. Per an actual legal specialist, Steve Vladek, at his SubStack One First:
… In an effort to cajole the Senate into passing the deeply controversial “SAVE” Act, President Trump has continued to publicly make claims about his putative authority to ban certain voting practices (like mail-in ballots) through unilateral executive action. Leaving aside the wildly overstated voter fraud claims purportedly animating these efforts, and the not-so-subtle attempt to make it harder for Americans without ready access to government-issued identification to vote, I wanted to use today’s “Long Read” to explain why the President’s threats are both legally and practically empty.
The legal argument is straightforward enough: the President has neither unilateral constitutional authority nor delegated statutory authority to set nationwide election rules. (This is why the SAVE Act is even on the table.) But for those who wave their hands and say “that hasn’t stopped this administration before” (even though, in point of fact, it has), there are also some pretty significant practical reasons why the President’s threats can’t amount to anything in practice, most of which sound in long-settled principles of constitutional federalism.
That doesn’t mean we won’t see other efforts from this administration and its supporters to interfere with—and otherwise attempt to undermine—the electoral process come this fall. But the President changing the rules all by himself is, both legally and practically, a complete non-starter…
… The relevant constitutional provision is the Elections Clause—Article I, Section 4: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”…
This reality matters to President Trump’s ongoing efforts to purport to interfere with state election rules in two different respects: First, any legal authority to so interfere must come from a statute—not from the Constitution itself. And there’s no existing federal statute that gives the federal government as a whole, let alone the executive branch by itself, the unilateral authority to set identification requirements for everyone voting in federal elections.
Second, the distribution of responsibility for elections is also the biggest practical obstacle to President Trump attempting to impose new federal rules through executive order: no one who’s actually in charge of those elections would be bound to comply with such an order. So unlike the President’s ability to order, say, executive branch agencies (or, say, immigration judges) to obey an unlawful executive order, here, he’d have no coercive power whatsoever. Some jurisdictions may choose to comply with an unlawful election-related executive order from the Trump administration, but the key for present purposes is that it would be those state/local officials’ choice, not a federal mandate, that does the work…
It is, or at least ought to be, deeply alarming that we’re even having to talk about a President trying to unilaterally change the rules for federal elections—especially given this particular President’s … history … concerning respect for the integrity of our electoral processes. One might also point out that the number of eligible voters who would likely be disenfranchised by the SAVE Act this fall is many degrees of magnitude higher than the total number of documented cases of voting by non-citizens over decades’ worth of elections. But without getting too deep into the policy debate here (which ought to militate against both disenfranching eligible voters and empowering this specific President), it’s worth underscoring that there’s just no viable legal argument, and no plausible practical basis, on which a President could unilaterally tell states that don’t want to listen how they must run their elections—including what, if any, identification registered voters need to produce in order to cast their ballots.
If the SAVE Act doesn’t make it through the Senate, that should be the end of the matter, at least on this topic, and at least for now.
An EO that says "hahahaha, I am the law! you must do this!" will be.. ignored. And when the DOJ sues to enforce, it will be thrown out.
— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) February 16, 2026 at 10:30 AM
there also aren't nearly enough feds and they've already done this. they already sent election monitors in the '25 elections in NJ and CA, and it accomplished nothing.
— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) February 16, 2026 at 10:38 AM
The federal government has almost no meaningful authority over election administration – and what it did have has been chipped away by a.. friendly supreme court that wants to advance state supremecy.
It cannot order states to "count it this way, instead of that way" There is no enforcement.— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) February 16, 2026 at 10:43 AM
And before you doomer or w/e, there are already multiple EOs that Trump has signed that states (including GOP run ones!) have gone "lol no" to.
The only mechanism in that case to enforce the EO is DOJ suing.— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) February 16, 2026 at 10:46 AM
Sidebar — this is also about Trump attempting to keep his fellow Repubs cowed:
Under-discussed: Trump won’t say he won’t run for a third term, so no Republican can start putting together their presidential campaign, they can’t conspicuously visit the early states, probably have to be cautious is lining up staff/consultants, etc.
— Dana Houle (@danahoule.bsky.social) February 16, 2026 at 3:41 PM
Yes, I believe that Trump's distraction about running for a third term is meant to try to ward off lame duck status as well.
— Just Kevin (@kevinleecaster.bsky.social) February 16, 2026 at 3:47 PM
Baud
That Ossoff quote is pure sweetness.
Shalimar
Here is a question that I don’t see come up. Pam Bondi was Attorney General from 2011 to 2019 of the state where Epstein primarily lived and had served jail time a year earlier. How do we know her name wasn’t in the files thousands of times? Do we really think she would have released those pages if she was? I think hypothetically she would have done a hell of a lot better job searching for her own name to redact than she did with Trump’s.
bbleh
@Baud: Ossoff is a rising star, and deservedly so.
@Shalimar: do we know she didn’t? But I don’t think it matters that much, because the overwhelming sentiment — even among the, ah, low-info Conspiracy Bros — seems to be, this is a gigantic cover-up, and whatever we’re seeing ain’t the whole story. They’ve really botched this — it’s actually kind of amazing.
As to Vladek re Trump, I don’t think anybody can (nor have I seen anybody really try to) argue with his legal point. If I had to bet, I’d say even John “Unitary Executive” Roberts and his gang could barely muster even a shadow-docket stay in his favor, much less a decision. The problem I have is with the “practical” argument.
I expect at least some red-state governments to try to materially fk with elections and election results, both via the usual tactics of closing polling places, imposing their own ID requirements, etc., and via newer ones like stationing police near particular polling places as an intimidation tactic, and — most worrisome for me — delaying counting, refusing to certify, and otherwise deliberately failing in their administrative DUTIES in order to muddy results, create controversy, throw things into the courts, and at least substantially delay if not derail elections in their states. Combine that with coordinated mischief by the present Congress — until new members’ elections are certified, who votes for Speaker? — and a constant barrage of authoritarian propaganda from Trump and his media allies, and … ???
I just hope he doesn’t try the Insurrection Act. That would be a REAL “situation.”
Snarki, child of Loki
Does the FEC even have a quorum, so that it can do anything?
IIRC, the MAGAts have been holding up appointments to the FEC, preferring that there be NO hindrance to their criming.
Socolofi
@Shalimar: Here’s the thing to always remember about the Epstein Class. The sign on the door to the clubhouse, in every state and island:
“No Chiks Aloud”
Epstein ain’t gonna try and pal around with the AG after he was able to cut a deal with her. Maybe some quiet donations here or there; maybe influencing others here and there to make sure nothing emerges. But generally speaking, if he’s gonna influence Florida, he’s gonna go straight for DeSantis (who, as near as I can see, was never a member, despite the usual sterling credentials for the club).
lowtechcyclist
@Baud:
The more I see/hear of him, the more I like him.
I contributed to his earlier campaigns simply because we need his vote in the Senate. But he’s definitely hitting all the right notes.
Another Scott
Meanwhile, over at ActBlue (From February 5):
Good, good.
Forward!!
Best wishes,
Scott.
SiubhanDuinne
RIP Robert Duvall. What a great actor. He had a good run, 95 years.
Ohio Mom
@bbleh: To be added to your list: Red states will be agressively purging voter rolls. Repeatedly, i imagine.
I plan on checking my status periodically.
no body no name
@Socolofi:
And yet Maxwell was running it with him. Multiple women have been implicated in it and are suffering the fallout with the men. There’s still the matter of his girlfriend the dentist who was in on it that he set up for life.
You just said that because you want it to be true even though it’s not true because it aligns with your political vision.
JetsamPool
@bbleh: I agree about red states trying to interfere with elections, and I would additionally posit that the administration would try something wildly illegal, like seizing ballots in a handful of districts, or really hinky, like announcing criminal investigations of select candidates? Can they interfere with post office operations? Can they send ICE to a smaller state just to disrupt election operations? I’m thinking of the ongoing siege of Minnesota, and the general chaos it is causing, although such efforts are likely to backfire.
I think a moment of truth will be after the election, when the administration refuses to accept the results and Republicans everywhere will have to decide what they will do.
To be clear I don’t think the above scenarios can happen on a large or even medium scale, but I’m worried that they could happen in maybe half a dozen districts.
MattF
It’s always seemed to me that Trump’s election denial claims are a test of faith. Do you believe enough in Trump to ignore any rational, evidence-based refutation? It’s great to hear Ossoff come out and say this.
bbleh
@MattF: yes and they also are a test of loyalty, not just to Trump but to the Tribe that supports him. Are you one of US or one of THEM? For a lot of people, that is crucial even to personal identity.
Jeffro
he is the LAMEST of lame ducks and that was effective on Jan 20, 2025
we cannot say it often enough, but we ought to try
his own party will not stand for him to run for a 3rd term (assuming he doesn’t keel over or – not a nonzero possibility – force him to resign or be impeached/removed before Nov 2028), and we ought to make BIG hay of that, too
Shalimar
@Socolofi: Kathy Ruemmler is mentioned 111 times, mostly when they emailed each other back and forth. He clearly had no problem cultivating women if they were important.
Jeffro
also, for all the doomers out there saying “TRUMPS GONNA CANCEL THE ELECTIONS” just tell them “no”
“no – I DEMAND that the elected officials of this country stand up and enforce our laws”
“no – I DEMAND that REPUBLICANS take part in this, it is NOT just a Democratic responsibility nor a partisan issue”
“no – I will not let the whiners of any stripe surrender in advance like this. NO, NO, NO”
Jeffro
btw OT but it deserves its own thread (but I’m biased as a loud and proud VA Dem): Governor Spanberger is making all the hit dogs howl
OUCH
also LOL
did you know that, white liberal women? Y’all are DANGEROUS!!
all I know is that anyone who’s pissing off Laura Loomer and Harmeet Dillon will never have to buy a drink if I’m at the bar
bbleh
@Jeffro: this! and also work to register people, support local organizations, and get out the vote when the time comes.
Jeffro
They’re more like an intelligence test.
They’re also a great opportunity for an enterprising young reporter to make $1,000 off of me, just for asking trumpov these questions to his face:
“sir…in the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections…did we ‘nationalize’ anything? did we have national ‘Voter ID’? did we have a ban on mail-in ballots?”
They can make another $1,000 just by asking the obvious follow-up, if and when he’s even able to respond.
Jeffro
scrolling back up to Ossoff for a sec…that is a good approach
“if you think bending the knee to trump is humiliating, wait until I point it out...”
Baud
@Jeffro:
Good enemies to make.
cain
Won’t matter, MAGA people are deeply unhappy as well. ICE operations have fucked them as well as Trump’s tariffs.
The gerrymandering they’ve done will also work against them. They can do all those tricks but it won’t help if rural people are angry. They’d have to restrict everything to one place per area and even then the votes coming in are going to be against them. They are really fucked.
lowtechcyclist
@Jeffro: I’d be happy to match those amounts. :D
lamh47
I literally just last Friday finally got my car registered in Texas and tomorrow finally getting my Texas drivers license done.
Hopefully that means I will be ok to vote in next elections here in DFW.
Baud
@lamh47:
Will you be able to vote in the primary in two weeks?
Matt McIrvin
@Jeffro: Oh, Trump claims he was cheated in 2016 and 2024 too. He likes to say that in a fair election he’d have won a 50-state landslide.
What he means when he says that is that a large fraction of the legal and documented citizenry of the US are not legitimate citizens and should not be voting. No prize for guessing who he’s talking about.
One avenue for chaos that I think might happen is the government suddenly “annulling” the citizenship of millions of people. It doesn’t have to stick in court, just has to create election chaos with them claiming these people’s voter registrations are invalid. And then when they vote anyway they can send ICE after a bunch of them, claim it invalidates the results, etc.
cain
@Matt McIrvin: It’s probably worse than that. If you didn’t vote for him, you aren’t a legitimate citizen.
lowtechcyclist
@Matt McIrvin:
Not sure how that would create any problems in states that call bullshit on this ‘annulment.’
They can do that any which way, though.
Jeffro
@Matt McIrvin: I don’t care about his excuses, or what he “means”. I don’t care about his endless avenues for chaos…it’s literally all he does.
I just want him to try and answer the question. Bigger picture: for the past 250 years, this is how we’ve done things, and the loser has always accepted the results. What makes 2020 special? Why the urgency now, with the 2026 midterms coming up, instead of immediately after 2016 or 2024? Where’s the evidence? WHAT’S. DIFFERENT. DONNIE?
Let him tell on himself, for the whole world to see.
That’s what I want. Just ask him why those two elections were ‘valid’ (even without ‘national Voter ID’, even with mail-in ballots) but everything else is suspect.
Jay
bsky.app/profile/joshchafetz.bsky.social/post/3meypyk5boc2i
Gov. Spanburger quietly shiv’s a ReThug.
Baud
@Jay:
Very nice.
Glidwrith
@cain: A great deal of the foot dragging to delay certification of an election was ruled or legislatively made illegal thanks to the prior iteration of Shitbird.
Jay
bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3meye7nliv22n
Eric S.
I’m case it hasn’t been posted. The Guardian documents a miriad of ways local and state governments are fighting back against ICE.
lamh47
@Baud: I should? I mean I thought I had completed voter registration when I did my change of address, but Texas is a different beast.
Salty Sam
lamh, you can check your status here: vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/
Matt McIrvin
@lowtechcyclist:
Will any? I mean, up to now basically all states have accepted the federal government’s determination of who is a US citizen, more or less without question. That’s because they haven’t had to behave otherwise. Denaturalization is rare and only happens in egregious cases. But suppose the federal government just starts declaring people non-citizens willy-nilly, per motions like Trump’s EO on birthright citizenship, but far more widespread–not just denying passports and Social Security cards and such, but revoking them, declaring that huge numbers of citizens are not citizens and never were. There’s probably going to be at least an interval in which states don’t have any alternative process for what to do about it.
At some point the Supreme Court is going to issue a ruling on the birthright citizenship thing. If they end up giving Trump a lot of latitude, they could be opening the door to this and not really leaving a legal avenue to object.
Another Scott
Speaking of Epstein…
Something something exceedingly fine.
Best wishes,
Scott.
Shalimar
@Matt McIrvin: The Supreme Court will have to come up with an alternative to birthright citizenship if they decide it doesn’t exist. How can you prove your parents were citizens? We don’t put status on birth certificates. We don’t put it anywhere. Everyone in my family was a citizen going back to the 1740s, but I don’t know how I prove it. The government would have to establish an official genealogy database we can all use.
WaterGirl
@Eric S.: Blocking the liquor licenses is my personal favorite!
Those are hard to get – at least they were in Chicago! – so you do not want to put that on the line.
Eric S.
@WaterGirl: That part of the headline got my attention too.
PS, New liquor licenses in Chicago are still hard to obtain.
RevRick
@bbleh: The House of Representatives is not a continuing body. It must reconstitute itself every time. A state that refuses to certify the election of its Representatives is a state that denies itself representation in that body, as in zero.
The first order of business for a new House is the election of a Speaker and a state without representation cannot participate in that process. Red states that FA with the election results may FO that Blue states will make their lives miserable in the House.
RevRick
It’s important for us to understand that in the blue states and most swing states Democrats control the election mechanisms. Trump can issue all the Executive Orders he wants, but the blue states can say, “Go f$$k yourself,” and the burden would be on Trump to win in the courts. And I seriously doubt that even the Supreme Court would entertain the notion of overturning an election, because they would have to consider the reality of pitchforks coming for them.
RevRick
@Matt McIrvin: Cool it with this Doomerism.
Gloria DryGarden
Arriving late. All the blue sky embeds say post not found, may have been deleted. That’s weird. Makes me wonder what I missed.
all I can see is the sub stack article .
Paul in KY
@Socolofi: Nobody wants DeSatanis in their club.
Paul in KY
@Jeffro: About ‘Loomer’ I’d say she’s one ‘N’ short of having truth in advertising.
Paul in KY
@lamh47: Yay!
Doctor Science
Indivisible’s strategy arc for 2026 is based on knowing that Trump & MAGA will try to steal the election and will then refuse to acknowledge that they’ve lost. I wrote about it on my substack: Indivisible’s 2026 Strategy Arc: Toward Enforcing the Midterm Elections
Erica Chenoweth & other scholars of resistance to authoritarianism have found that when 3.5% or more of a population is engaged in nonviolent resistance, authoritarianism can’t win. For the US, that’s 12 million people.
So the plan is to, on the one hand, build a Democratic Party that will actually fight fascism; and on the other, gradually get enough people engaged in nonviolent resistance that when the time comes for truly mass, society-wide protest, strikes, or whatever, the people are *there* in actually irresistible numbers.
Here’s the motto Leah Greenberg says we should put on our walls and phone lock screens, to keep our eyes on the prize:
I’m no-one special with Indivisible, I just go to the weekly What’s The Plan meetings.
fancycwabs
I realize that Trump can’t cancel elections by executive fiat, but it’s hard to overstate just how badly the deck is stacked against Democrats in red states, compared to a relatively level playing field for Republicans in blue states.
I conservatively estimate there’s a 5% systematic advantage for a Republican candidate here in Tennessee, between Republicans being listed first on the ballot, different voting rules for red vs blue counties, lifetime felony disenfranchisement, implicit threats posted at polling places and publicly declared allegiances during primaries, no paper trail (and therefore no recounts), etc.
It’s no wonder Tennessee is the Heritage Foundation’s model for the rest of the country.