For months, a small chorus around the president has pressed him toward the same lever: Declare a national emergency, seize control of election administration by executive fiat, and stop waiting on a Senate that will not pass the SAVE America Act. Wayne Root made the pitch to Trump directly on air in August, telling him that an emergency declaration would deliver photo ID, proof of citizenship, and mail-ballot restrictions in a month, with no need for Congress at all. Trump’s answer was not no. “Let me just say stranger things have happened,” he said, and left it there.
Read more What Lindsey Clancy’s defenders have revealed about American women
That non-answer has been treated ever since as a live threat hanging over the midterms. It probably shouldn’t be. Monday’s Supreme Court order handed the administration something better than an emergency declaration would have given it: a working legal theory, already validated by a 6-3 majority, for getting most of what Trump wants through the courts rather than around them.
The ruling itself was narrow, and the Court was careful to say so. In Trump v. California, the justices did not bless the substance of Trump’s mail-voting executive order; they held that the twenty-three states that sued had not shown an injury concrete and imminent enough to make their claims justiciable before the November midterms. The order, the majority wrote, “is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies” and “neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch.” Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in response pressed that the government cannot credibly argue that the order does nothing to defeat standing while separately insisting that it needs to implement the order immediately to establish irreparable harm. That tension is real, and it may resurface once the states refile against a finalized rule. But it is a dispute about timing and posture, not about whether the underlying policy survives scrutiny, and it does not change what the ruling clears the administration to do right now.
With the prematurity objection cleared away, the administration can move forward on the pieces of the order the Court left standing: a Department of Homeland Security citizenship list shared with the states, prosecutorial priority for the Justice Department against state officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters, and Postal Service rulemaking on ballot design. The single most aggressive piece of the order — instructing USPS to withhold ballots from anyone not on a government eligibility list — remains blocked under a separate nationwide injunction from Judge Talwani, and that fight continues. But three of four major pieces are now moving, on the strength of an actual majority opinion rather than a presidential proclamation nobody asked the courts to bless in advance. And notably, none of it required a new statute or a declared emergency to get this far; the order simply directs agencies already under the president’s control to do their ordinary jobs differently.
Compare that to what an emergency declaration would actually buy him. The National Emergencies Act was built for exactly what its name says — foreign threats, financial crises, public health catastrophes — not for the Executive Branch to override the constitutional design that hands election administration to the states and, where federal elections are concerned, to Congress. Legal scholars across the spectrum have made this point with unusual near unanimity: There is no general emergency clause in the Constitution, and no statute converts a president’s say-so into authority to impose voter ID rules, ban mail ballots, or dictate how states run their own elections. An emergency declaration on these grounds would not need to survive one lawsuit in one circuit. It would draw a dozen at once, filed in every circuit with a willing plaintiff state. The Center for American Progress was blunt about this months ago, and for once the assessment was not just partisan hyperbole; it was simply the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s textual allocation of election authority doing what they always do.
Read more Mrs. Clinton is another weak Democrat leader
There is also a cost an emergency declaration carries that litigation does not: It hands the opposition exactly the story it wants to tell. Every governor and attorney general who condemned Monday’s ruling as a step toward “voter suppression” and “Orwellian rules” was reacting to a lawful, if contested, Supreme Court order — the normal operation of the Judicial Branch resolving a live dispute. An emergency declaration invites a different and far more damaging headline: a president bypassing Congress and the courts to seize control of an election six weeks out.
None of this means the administration gets everything the SAVE America Act would have delivered. Talwani’s broader injunction on the USPS ballot-withholding provision stands, and the states have already signaled they will sue again over whatever final rule the Postal Service issues next. The fight over mail ballots is not over; Monday’s ruling was explicit that “time will tell” whether any of the administration’s implementing measures will hold up on the merits.
That is precisely the point. An administration that is winning, however incrementally, in front of the Supreme Court on the actual merits track has no rational reason to trade that position for the far weaker and far more inflammatory ground of an emergency declaration that most constitutional lawyers, including some sympathetic to the administration’s underlying policy goals, do not believe would survive a single motions hearing.
The emergency declaration still exerts political pressure to reconsider the SAVE America Act, at least for those who fear the possible crises that might arise from a declaration. But the emergency declaration was always the tool of last resort — the option for an administration that had exhausted the ordinary channels and needed to force the issue. Twenty-three states, a Massachusetts federal judge, and a First Circuit panel notwithstanding, Trump has not exhausted the ordinary channels. He is, as of Monday, winning through them. There is no reason to reach for the emergency lever when the deliberate one is already turning in his favor.
Read more Randi Weingarten is using economic extortion against Target
Image via Pixabay, Pixabay License.