U.S. Military Should Prepare for Election Disruptions

The New York Times reports that election results will likely not be known on Election Night & the person who looks like the winner might not be. It is quite strange yet telling that the Times is telling readers that the large delay in counting is because of “intense security measures,” not fraud.

“For the second straight presidential election, it is becoming increasingly likely that there will be no clear and immediate winner on election night and that early returns could give a false impression of who will ultimately prevail,” the NYT reported.

“If a winner is not declared on election night, it will not necessarily point to failures in the process. More likely, it will be a result of the intense security measures required for counting mail-in ballots.”

Can the Military Declare Martial Law due to Electoral Fraud?

The military can only legally deploy martial law in the event of election interference under very specific and extreme circumstances. Typically, election disputes and interference are handled through the courts, law enforcement, and civil processes.

National Security Threat: The legal basis for martial law could begin with an argument that the integrity of the election has been compromised by a rogue faction within the government that has engaged in illegal activity to manufacture fake mail-in ballots. This act constitutes a direct assault on the foundations of democracy and the national security of the United States, as it seeks to undermine the lawful transfer of power and the will of the people.

Constitutional Duty to Preserve the Republic: The U.S. Constitution obligates the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government (Article IV, Section 4). Election interference on such a large scale by a covert cabal within the government threatens to subvert this form of governance. If the regular civilian mechanisms (courts, law enforcement) are unable or unwilling to address this threat due to infiltration or incapacity, the military could argue that it has a constitutional duty to step in temporarily to preserve the republic.

Breakdown of Civilian Governance: Martial law is traditionally considered only when civilian governance is unable to function. If election interference has led to mass protests, violence, or societal collapse—especially if it is exacerbated by foreign or rogue domestic forces—the military could argue that civilian authorities are no longer able to uphold the law, thereby justifying martial law to restore order.

Protection of Constitutional Rights: A key component of this argument is that martial law would not be used to curtail constitutional rights but to protect them. The fraudulent election is itself a violation of the constitutional right to free and fair elections. In this argument, martial law would be a temporary and necessary tool to restore democratic integrity and ensure that lawful elections are held.

Supreme Court Precedents and Legal Limits: The argument could acknowledge relevant Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Ex parte Milligan, 1866) that limit the imposition of martial law. However, it could argue that these cases involved situations where civilian courts were functioning, and there was no widespread subversion of the government. In the case of a rogue faction within the government compromising the election, civilian mechanisms may be infiltrated or paralyzed, justifying martial law as a temporary corrective measure.

Role of the Military as a Neutral Protector: The military’s role would be framed not as a partisan force but as a neutral protector of the Constitution and public safety. Its involvement would be limited to restoring the rule of law, ensuring the integrity of future elections, and reestablishing functional civilian governance.

The legal argument for martial law under the conditions of election interference by a rogue faction within the government centers on the preservation of the constitutional order and the national security of the United States. The military's role would be temporary and aimed at protecting democratic processes until civilian governance could be restored. However, such a move would face significant legal and political challenges and would require substantial evidence of systemic failure and subversion.