Peter Ticktin, a Florida lawyer, is pushing for an executive order from President Trump to declare a national emergency regarding the upcoming midterm elections. His aim? A federal takeover of the election process. He shared his thoughts with Democracy Docket, but legal experts quickly criticized his proposal.
Many argue that Ticktin’s plan is unconstitutional. He seems to misunderstand the laws regarding emergency powers. In a memo, Ticktin claims the president can act if there’s a threat of foreign interference in elections, citing the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as his legal bases. However, experts point out that these laws don’t grant the authority to seize voting equipment or manipulate mail-in ballots.
Liza Goitein, a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice, has argued that for the president to declare a national emergency, there must actually be a defined threat. “An unproven claim of foreign interference is not enough,” she stated.
The NEA was established after Watergate to limit presidential emergency powers. It mandates that the president specify the emergency statute being invoked. Similarly, the IEEPA allows the president to tackle extraordinary threats but is mainly geared toward economic issues rather than election management.
For context, executive actions like these have a historical backdrop. The IEEPA has been used for economic sanctions against nations harboring terrorists or engaging in other unlawful actions. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling invalidated Trump’s use of the IEEPA for tariffs, emphasizing that the president cannot wield such powers without congressional approval.
Goitein also clarifies that the IEEPA does not grant the president the capability to control election-related properties. Voting machines are owned by states, not foreign entities. Additionally, the IEEPA restricts the president’s ability to regulate mail, explicitly excluding personal communications like ballots.
Given these limitations, the push for a federal intervention in elections raises concerns about the integrity of democratic processes. Many users on social media have reacted negatively, suggesting that such actions infringe upon state rights and undermine trust in the electoral system.
In summary, while Ticktin believes he has a strong case for federal action, legal experts highlight significant barriers. The constitutional framework emphasizes checks and balances, limiting presidential power in matters traditionally managed by states. As elections approach, this debate will likely remain contentious, reflecting the broader struggle over election integrity and federal authority.
For further insight on this topic, you can check the Brennan Center for Justice’s resources on emergency powers in governance.
Source link
