It isn’t the U.S. Postal Service I’m so worried about. I don’t have a giant concern that ballots won’t be distributed to eligible voters – and by eligible, I mean all of them. Even the troublesome ones in blue states. Call me crazy, but I feel like that’s a bit of a red herring – a diversion from their actual goal.
What really worries me is what happens after Democrats win control of the House and Senate and the Republicans in control (I’m talking about you, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and you, Senate Majority Leader John Thune) simply refuse to seat the duly elected senators and representatives.
Think that’s unlikely? Actually, I think it’s practically guaranteed. Consider what Johnson told the crowd on Thursday at Donald Trump’s absurd midterm convention in Dallas: “We cannot and will not allow them to take the majority in the Congress. We’re not gonna do it.”
This is what is known as saying the democracy-killing part out loud. Because in truth, you can’t just refuse to seat elected officials because you don’t feel like it. It doesn’t work that way. At least, it didn’t before Trump decided the law no longer applied to him or his party, and the Supreme Court majority wholeheartedly agreed.
Let’s focus first on the House, because it’s pretty clear that Johnson is the more eager to betray his oath and his country to do any and all of the president’s bidding without a second thought.
Suppose the Democrats win the 2026 House election narrowly — say something like:
Democrats 220
Republicans 215
Now imagine Republicans challenge the results in six Democratic-won districts. They don't announce, “We're refusing to seat Democrats.” Instead, they say, “These six elections involve irregularities, illegal ballots, certification problems, or unresolved disputes, and Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the House to determine who actually won them.”
That distinction matters. Congress actually does possess substantial authority to adjudicate contested congressional elections.
The political objective could therefore be accomplished indirectly: postpone seating enough Democratic winners that Republicans temporarily keep their House majority. And January 3, 2027 — the day the new Congress convenes — finds the Republicans still in charge, superseding the will of voters.
Let’s remember that Johnson has already taken this strategy out for a test drive. He refused to seat Adelita Grijalva, the newly elected Democratic representative for Arizona’s 7th congressional district, for 50 days following her special election victory last September. He claimed that because there was a federal government shutdown at the time, his hands were tied. They weren’t, of course, but lying has never been a problem for this guy.
There is an additional complication in the case of the forthcoming midterms: the outgoing Republican majority does not simply remain the House majority indefinitely because it refuses to recognize the election. House terms constitutionally expire. The organization of the new House, the clerk's roll of members-elect, state election certificates, challenges to credentials, the election of the Speaker, and ultimately Article I procedures would all become enormously consequential.
Johnson has the power to remove the current clerk of the House, Kevin McCumber, and replace him with a MAGA loyalist who would refuse to list Democrats on the roll of those elected to the 120th Congress.
In that case, the elected Dems would need to convince a federal court to order the incoming clerk to list their names. But even if the court decides that it’s required after all, what is to stop the clerk — under intense pressure from his or her fellow Republicans — from refusing to obey said order?
That would then trigger a review by the courts that could take weeks, perhaps months, and wind up at the SCOTUS where, I don’t need to tell you, all bets are off. And meanwhile, the Republicans would continue to be in charge of Congress pending the interminable delay.
I’m sorry to report that this is not a far-fetched scenario, ladies and gentlemen. And the Senate is vulnerable to similar duplicity.
Let’s imagine that Democrats win enough Senate races to take control, but Republicans claim that one or two Democratic victories are illegitimate, for whatever fabricated reason.
The Senate also has constitutional authority to judge the elections and qualifications of senators. So, a contested Senate election could produce a genuine fight over whether someone should be seated while the election is investigated.
Again, Republicans could not just say, “You won the election, you meet the constitutional qualifications, but we're not seating you because we want to remain the majority. Tough luck.”
It’s highly unlikely that their criminality would be quite so blatant. All they need is to concoct a pretext to prevent an elected member from being seated. Because once the seating takes place, getting rid of said member becomes dramatically more difficult.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to expel a sitting member. A simple majority can potentially exclude a member-elect on legitimate constitutional/election grounds, but it cannot seat someone and then immediately throw him or her out by ordinary majority vote.
That creates an incentive in any attempted power grab to prevent disputed members from being sworn in in the first place.
The truly dangerous scenario isn't a permanent legal theory that Congress may ignore elections. It's delay. If they create enough complications and chaos, the Republicans stay in charge until it can all get sorted out. And who knows? The litigation could take a year, or more.
Meanwhile, Congress moves forward with Republicans unlawfully in charge. A Speaker is elected. Committees are established. Legislation is passed or, more likely, rejected. And most crucially, Trump continues to go on his merry way free from even the thinnest constraints.
It feels like the warning signs are already there that they plan to go this route, considering that they view the rules as mere quaint suggestions for suckers. It’s all about staying in control at all costs.
I would love to believe that unfettered corruption isn’t at the heart of everything these Republicans are doing while marching in lockstep with their organized crime boss. But I’m unfortunately having a little trouble buying into that possibility.
(Ray Richmond is a longtime journalist/author and an adjunct professor at Chapman University in Orange, CA.)