The Impact of Delaying the November Election: Understanding the Legal and Practical Realities

With the November 2020 election approaching, questions have arisen about the potential for delays due to various factors, including the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and political strategies. This article explores the legality and practicality of delaying the election and discusses the steps that would need to be taken to do so.

Legality of Election Delay

It's important to understand the legal framework surrounding the conduct of elections in the United States. The federal government plays a significant role, but states retain considerable authority in the organization and conduct of elections. According to the U.S. Constitution, the president is impeachable by the end of their term on January 20th, 2021. Delaying the election thus means that the outgoing president's term would remain unchanged.

However, the process of delaying an election is multifaceted and intertwined with state regulations. The President, while having significant influence, does not hold the sole authority to cancel or delay state elections. States elect representatives and senators through their respective electoral processes, and these elections are not subject to federal override.

Practical Considerations

The practical feasibility of delaying the election is another critical factor. If a second surge of the coronavirus occurs, it poses a severe threat to public health. However, making a decision to delay based on such practical concerns would involve a complex interplay of governmental bodies and would likely be made by entities such as the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or NIH (National Institutes of Health), rather than the President alone.

Potential Impact on Vote Integrity

A major concern with delaying the election is the potential impact on the integrity of the vote. Democrats are advocating for a shift towards mail-in voting, citing a need for safe and accessible voting options. However, this change carries significant risks, including the possibility of falsified ballots and other forms of electoral fraud.

Electronic voting options, while sometimes proposed, are fraught with technical issues and security concerns. The Federal government, being the largest bureaucracy in the world, would face immense challenges in implementing any new voting system on a national scale. Any disruption or mistrust in the electoral process could lead to widespread skepticism and chaos.

Political Strategies for Non-Supporters

Instead of trying to delay the election, Donald Trump is more likely to focus on strategies to suppress voter turnout among non-supporters. He has already expressed opposition to universal mail-in voting, suggesting an increased push for in-person voting despite the ongoing public health risks. By promoting social distancing measures while also encouraging in-person voting, Trump may be hoping to create a scenario where certain voter groups are less likely to participate.

Conclusion

The status quo, with elections held on schedule, appears to be the most practical and legal course of action. While the coronavirus pandemic presents significant challenges, changes to the electoral process would require coordinated efforts and widespread acceptance. The ongoing drama and controversy make an electoral delay or significant change highly unlikely.