Washington, D.C. — There are growing concerns that President Donald Trump might deploy armed federal forces to polling sites in a ploy to intimidate voters or limit access during the upcoming midterm election.
A new analysis from the Center for American Progress examines long-standing federal law that expressly prohibits the deployment armed federal forces to the polls unless there is a need to “repel armed enemies of the United States.”
No president in history has ever invoked this exception. But CAP’s analysis considers some of the ways President Trump might try to get around the law and explains how they are all legally dubious.
The administration could try, for example, to claim that “armed enemies” include immigrants, gang members, or so-called antifa members that are physically threatening polling places. But courts considering similar language under other statutes have ruled that an “invasion” must be considered only in a military sense of the term, and that state law enforcement remains capable of protecting election sites.
The president might also claim that polling sites are under cyberattack by a foreign government, perhaps Iran, with whom the United States is in an armed conflict. The template for this type of attempt already exists in the form of a draft executive order considered during the first Trump administration. But CAP’s analysis shows how courts would almost certainly reject such a contrived pretext that distorts the specific language and intent of the law.
Read the analysis: “Presidents Cannot Distort Laws To Justify Deploying Federal Forces To “Repel Armed Enemies” in Elections” by Michael Sozan and Emma Hulbert
For more information, or to speak with an expert, please contact Sam Hananel at [email protected].