What if Trump Loses and Refuses to Leave
What happens if a president loses an ballot only won't exit the White Business firm?
President Donald Trump has suggested he would not accept the results of the 2020 presidential election if he were to lose. Let'south say he does lose and he refuses to go out the White Firm. What then? Nothing like this has ever happened in American history, and then information technology's difficult to know for certain. However, political scientists and historians told Live Science they're reasonably confident it wouldn't piece of work.
In one scenario, presume that challenger Joe Biden wins by a wide enough margin in enough swing states to put the actual election results beyond doubt. It's reasonable to wonder whether Trump, who has said that he could only lose if the election were "rigged" against him, would ever take the results of an election he lost.
According to the 20th Amendment, if Trump loses the ballot, his term would end at noon on Jan. xx, 2021, at which time he would officially pass his commander-in-chief authority to Biden.
Related: We Fact-Checked the Science Behind the Republican Party 2016 Platform
Fifty-fifty if he disagrees with the results, if Trump loses, he'd almost certainly be removed from the White Business firm, according to Robert Shapiro, a professor and the former interim director of Columbia University's Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy.
There'due south no reason today to assume things will ever become to that bespeak. Trump might only win the election, misreckoning polls for a second time after 2016. He might lose the ballot, then hold to go out office. And he might be able to hang on to his role by putting his thumb on the scales in the courts, as he has said.
Trump's stated strategy is already unprecedented
Trump has repeatedly said in public that he expects to win the election through court battles (every bit opposed to victory at the polls).
This, on its own, wouldn't exist entirely new. In the 2000 presidential election, Texas Gov. George W. Bush defeated Vice President Al Gore, non past clearly having the most votes bandage in his favor, but by more than effectively fighting court battles following a Florida outcome then hazy that — as Leon Nayfakh reported in the podcast series Fiasco — the true winner may take been unknowable.
That doesn't hateful a courtroom fight for the presidency is the new normal. Bush v. Gore, the v-4 Supreme Court decision that ended the 2000 election, was supposed to be an abnormality. The bourgeois bulk that handed the election to Bush wrote that the doctrine they used should never exist used as precedent. 1 of them, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, afterwards wondered publicly whether information technology was a mistake.
And there are important differences between 2000 and 2020.
Related: 6 Civil War myths busted
Get-go, Trump has undertaken a tremendous (though not entirely successful) endeavour before election day to forbid people from voting in key swing states, co-ordinate to The Center for Public Integrity and the quondam Republican speaker of the Texas Business firm. GOP lawyers have fanned out across the country to make absentee voting more than difficult and tried (thus far unsuccessfully) to toss out votes already cast.
2nd, though Gore was vice president to President Bill Clinton, who supported him, and Bush was brother to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, neither human being was president at the time they were fighting to overturn election results. If Trump uses a Supreme Court challenge to win the election as he has suggested, he'll be doing it every bit the sitting president. And he will have personally installed three of the nine justices who could decide the instance.
And of grade, neither Bush nor Gore threatened legal challenges earlier the ballot had actually happened. Only when a huge, decisive swing state came down to a few hundred uncertain votes did Gore fight for recounts and Bush fight to stop recounts.
Stealing an election is hard
Trump has struck out into uncharted territory with his threats of a legal battle for the presidency, Shapiro said. But despite all the noise, Shapiro expects that the actual winner of the election will become president.
"In the 2000 ballot, Florida was caught off-baby-sit. Nobody knew that was coming," he said. "Everything that's going on right now, everyone knows is coming."
Ultimately, the bureaucracy of elections is beyond Trump's reach.
"Each of the land election bureaucracies are feverishly trying to complete the running of their elections and the counting of the votes. They know what's coming and they know what they take to practice," he said. "These are election professionals who do vary in quality beyond states. … They take pride in making elections work. There'south no shenanigans among the actual civil service vote counters."
And whatever shenanigans are attempted, at some point they accept to finish.
Federal police force says that united states of america have to finalize their choices of electors on December. eight of the year of elections. And on Dec. 14, the electoral higher casts their votes — typically with each group of electors meeting separately in their own land. At that signal, Shapiro said, the matter is settled. If more electors vote for Trump, he volition get a second inauguration. If more vote for Biden, he volition be the legal president-elect, beyond the reach of a court challenge.
U.Due south. presidential candidates have always accustomed ballot results
Still, what if Trump still refuses to leave?
Information technology'due south worth maxim again that while Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, he hasn't explicitly said he would reject results even at this signal. And it would exist a truthful start in American history.
Asked if whatever president had ever hinted at refusing to accept ballot results, Bruce Schulman, a historian at Boston University, said no.
"At that place is no such precedent or annihilation really like it," Schulman told Live Science.
Twice, in 1824 and 1876, presidential elections take ended in the House of Representatives after no candidate managed to secure a majority of the electoral college, he pointed out.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford all ran for the presidency, none won an electoral college bulk, and the House selected Adams every bit as president.
The 1876 congressional competition ended when Republican Rutherford B. Hayes promised congressional Democrats that he would end Reconstruction in return for their votes. That remains one of the most meaning events in American history, as The Atlantic reported. Just in each example, the loser accepted the last result.
(The 1860 election, though it led to a civil war, did non spark any disputes about who had been legitimately elected President, Schulman noted.)
Related: Why did the Autonomous and Republican parties switch platforms?
A more relevant precedent, said Noah Rosenblum, a legal historian at Columbia University in New York City, may exist the ballot of 1800, betwixt President John Adams (a Federalist) and Vice President Thomas Jefferson (a Democratic-Republican).
"That election, as you may know, pitted the Federalists against the Democratic-Republicans, and the competition was violent," Rosenblum said. "Each side expressed its sense that, if the other won, it would hateful the end of the Commonwealth. And the Federalists, who were in ability, took action explicitly designed to weaken their Democratic-Republican opponents, including passing the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts nether which they imprisoned Democratic-Republican newspaper editors."
In other words, republic was on the election.
"Nevertheless, subsequently the Federalists lost the (very close) election, John Adams peacefully stepped down in favor of Thomas Jefferson," Rosenblum said.
So a scenario where Trump refuses to accept a decided election result would exist outlandish, even by the rough and tumble standards of the 19th century.
Just all the same, what if?
"You lot're talking about the state of affairs where the vote has been counted, all legal challenges to the vote have been taken care of, the electors meet on the 14th and cast their votes," Shapiro said.
The process then is clear.
"At that point it gets passed on to Congress [usually past Dec. 23] and certified in Congress on January. half dozen by the [approachable] vice president," Shapiro said. "Now, on the sixth, let'due south say that the House and the Senate take that the new president of the United States is Joe Biden. At that juncture, if Trump doesn't desire to vacate the White Business firm, this is very easy."
In legal terms, there's petty Trump could do to concord on to ability.
"Somebody swears [Biden] in every bit president. It could be the principal justice of the Supreme Court. It could exist his grandmother. Every bit of Apex on the 20th [of January], he'due south the president of the The states. The entire Hush-hush Service reports to him," Shapiro said. "Donald Trump every bit the outgoing president has a contingent of Cloak-and-dagger Service. Biden goes to the White House and the Underground Service escorts Trump out. That's what happens. All the civil service of the government, every employee of the United states of america reports to Joe Biden at that juncture."
This story of a straightforward resolution comes with its own assumptions: That the electors are able to vote and accept their votes certified; that institutions of the federal authorities — including Congress, with its roll in certifying results — function as expected; and that the Secret Service (also equally other armed federal agents) follow the law. There are places in the world and moments in history where transfers of power have broken down forth similar lines. But never before in the United States.
As Jonathan Gienapp, a Stanford Academy historian, noted in October, Trump'southward refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power calls the strength of American institutions into question. The constitution itself has no direct safeguards to ensure peace, and instead assumes that anybody involved in an election shares a delivery to abiding by the result.
"Nosotros take institutions that can exist called upon to intervene disputes or deny unlawful usurpations of power, but the safeguards that will decide matters are more political than constitutional," he wrote. "It may autumn to elected political leaders, as it did in 1876-77, to work out some sort of compromise. Or, if necessary, the people will need to exercise their cardinal right to assemble and protestation in an attempt to bring about resolution."
Still, Shapiro said he expects America's multi-century streak of turning over the presidency according to the rules to continue, if everything goes correct up until that point.
"That's the easiest scenario," he said. "I think the Hole-and-corner Service is going to report to the new president of the Us. The harder scenario is getting the agreed-upon vote count and the agreed-upon electors."
All that said, a recalcitrant Trump could do plenty in the months between today and inauguration to make trouble for Biden, if Biden wins. Presidential transitions are tricky processes, Shapiro said. Thousands of political appointees across the federal regime, from the NASA administrator to middle managers at important federal agencies to cabinet officials, would have to exist replaced equally the Trump administration turned over to a Biden administration. Typically, outgoing and incoming teams work closely on this. But Trump could just refuse to permit Biden staff through the doors before inauguration, making the handover unusually difficult.
In the stop though, Shapiro said, it would happen — an entire transition conducted from a distance, unfinished until after inauguration would withal exist a transition. At that place would be a new assistants, and the old assistants would have to go away.
That is, assuming the institutions hold together.
Originally published on Alive Science.
Source: https://www.livescience.com/what-if-president-rejects-election-results.html