Protecting Elections: A 120th Congress Oversight Plan

Protecting American Elections: How the 120th Congress Can Lawfully Investigate Federal Interference, Back Up the States, and Legislate Durable Safeguards

B

y Corey J. Biazzo, Esq., Biazzo Law, PLLC — part of the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program. Country over Party. Patriot over Partisan.

In short: The Constitution gives the power to run elections to the states and the power to "make or alter" the rules for congressional elections to Congress (U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1). It gives the President no role in administering elections. During the 2026 election cycle, federal courts repeatedly ruled that executive actions aimed at election administration exceeded executive authority — from executive orders on proof of citizenship and mail ballots, to Justice Department lawsuits demanding states' unredacted voter rolls. This post gives members of the 120th Congress a lawful, step-by-step investigative plan with a clear legislative purpose: how to request and subpoena documents, photos, videos, and testimony; how to preserve evidence before it disappears; how to work with state election officials as partners; and twelve reforms Congress can enact under its own constitutional authority so that no President of either party can do this again.

Key facts at a glance

Issue	What happened	Status (as of November 13, 2026)
Executive Order 14248 (Mar. 25, 2025) — proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form	Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (D.D.C.) held that "the President lacks the authority to direct such changes"	Section 2(a) permanently enjoined (Oct. 31, 2025); Sections 2(d) and 3(d) permanently enjoined (Jan. 30, 2026); government said it would appeal
Executive Order 14399 — election-administration directives	Judge Indira Talwani (D. Mass.) blocked Sections 2–3	Ruling June 25, 2026 (see our Government Oversight posts)
DOJ demands for unredacted state voter rolls	DOJ sued about 30 states and D.C. under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, NVRA, and HAVA	Every court to rule so far has ruled against DOJ, including the Sixth Circuit (June 24, 2026); Judge Sparkle Sooknanan (D.D.C.) halted DOJ's voter-list review program (Oct. 2026)
USPS ballot-mail rule	Challenged in federal court	Supreme Court denied the government's stay application (No. 26A305)
SAVE citizenship-verification database	Challenged in federal court	Supreme Court allowed SAVE use to resume (No. 26A308)
Watson v. RNC (ballot-receipt deadlines)	Supreme Court decision on mail-ballot receipt	Confirms Congress — not the President — sets any national rule
United States v. California (ballot segregation demand)	DOJ sought to force California to segregate certain ballots	Relief denied at every level, most recently Nov. 2, 2026
Federal agents at polling places	DHS leaders said agents could conduct enforcement at polling places in certain circumstances; two suits filed in D.D.C. (Sept. 2026)	18 U.S.C. §§ 592–593 bar troops and armed federal personnel at polling places

Disclosure: Biazzo Law, PLLC filed amicus briefs in several of the matters discussed here, including the USPS, SAVE, Watson, and California matters. This post is written for every member of Congress, regardless of party.

What happened to American elections in the 2026 cycle?

The 2026 midterm elections took place on November 3, 2026, after more than a year of federal actions that state election officials, voters, and courts across the ideological spectrum challenged as intrusions into state-run elections. The pattern matters more than any single episode, because it shows where federal law has gaps that Congress can close.

1. Executive orders aimed at election rules. Executive Order 14248 (March 25, 2025) directed the independent Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require documentary proof of citizenship on the national mail voter registration form and pressed other changes to how federal agencies handle voter registration. In a series of rulings, Judge Kollar-Kotelly permanently blocked the key provisions, holding that because the Constitution assigns election regulation "to the States and to Congress," the President could not direct those changes. A later order, Executive Order 14399, was partially blocked by Judge Talwani in June 2026.

2. Justice Department lawsuits for unredacted voter rolls. The Justice Department sued roughly 30 states and the District of Columbia, seeking voters' names, addresses, birthdates, and partial Social Security or driver's license numbers. Federal judges appointed by Presidents of both parties rejected these suits, and the Sixth Circuit became the first appeals court to rule against the Department in June 2026. In the Rhode Island case, a Department attorney acknowledged the data was sought so it could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security for citizenship checks. In October 2026, Judge Sooknanan halted the Department's broader program to collect and audit state voter lists. At least 18 states had produced their records before that ruling.

3. Federal agents and polling places. Senior officials made public statements that immigration agents could conduct enforcement at polling places in certain circumstances, and the President did not rule it out. DHS later said ICE was "not planning operations targeting polling locations." Civil rights and labor groups filed two lawsuits in September 2026 to block any such deployment, and a group of senators sent a letter to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense and the Attorney General asking who had authorized any planned deployments.

4. Mail ballots, the Postal Service, and citizenship databases. Federal rules and programs touching mail-ballot delivery (USPS) and citizenship verification (the SAVE database) reached the Supreme Court on emergency applications, with mixed results. In Watson v. RNC, the Court addressed mail-ballot receipt deadlines and made clear that a uniform national rule is Congress's to make.

5. Pressure on individual states. In United States v. California, the Justice Department sought to compel California to segregate certain ballots; courts denied that relief at every level, most recently on November 2, 2026, the day before the election.

None of these facts depends on anyone's view of a particular candidate or party. Each one raises the same structural question for Congress: what may the federal executive lawfully do in an election, and what has Congress authorized it to do?

Who controls American elections under the Constitution?

The answer is clear in the text, and it is not the President.

• The states run elections. The Elections Clause provides that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." (Art. I, § 4, cl. 1.) States also appoint presidential electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." (Art. II, § 1, cl. 2.)

• Congress can override the states for congressional elections. The same clause continues: "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations." Congress has used this power for the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).

• Congress protects the right to vote. The Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments each give Congress power to enforce voting-rights guarantees "by appropriate legislation."

• Congress controls the money. Under the Appropriations Clause (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 18), Congress decides what federal agencies may spend on anything touching elections.

• The President executes the laws Congress writes. Article II gives the President the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" — not the power to write election rules. As Judge Kollar-Kotelly put it in the Executive Order 14248 litigation, "our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress."

What federal law already says

Law	What it does
18 U.S.C. § 592	Criminal offense for a federal officer or employee to order, bring, or keep "troops or armed men" at any place where an election is held, "unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States"
18 U.S.C. § 593	Criminal offense for military officers to interfere with elections
18 U.S.C. §§ 594, 595	Criminal offenses for intimidating voters, including by federal employees using official authority
52 U.S.C. § 10307(b) (Voting Rights Act § 11(b))	Prohibits intimidation, threats, or coercion of voters
52 U.S.C. § 20501 et seq. (NVRA)	Sets voter registration and list-maintenance rules, including the 90-day quiet period before federal elections for systematic removals
52 U.S.C. § 20901 et seq. (HAVA)	Requires statewide voter registration databases; created the EAC
52 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq. (Civil Rights Act of 1960, Title III)	Requires preservation of federal election records for 22 months and permits the Attorney General to inspect certain records
5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act)	Limits how federal agencies collect, combine, and share records about individuals
3 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022)	Clarifies the certification and counting of presidential electoral votes

What the government argues

Fairness requires stating the executive branch's position plainly. Administration officials have said the actions above aim to ensure "only American citizens are casting ballots in American elections," to enforce NVRA and HAVA list-maintenance requirements, and to protect public safety. The Justice Department has argued that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 gives the Attorney General broad authority to obtain election records, and DHS has said ICE "is not planning operations targeting polling locations" and acts only on targeted, intelligence-driven enforcement. Preventing noncitizen voting and keeping accurate rolls are legitimate goals that members of both parties share.

The question for Congress is not whether those goals are legitimate. It is whether the means used were authorized by statute, respected the states' constitutional role, protected voters' privacy, and complied with the laws above. Courts have answered many of those questions in the states' favor. Congress is the branch that can make the answers permanent.

Does Congress have the authority to investigate federal election interference?

Yes. Congress's power to investigate is broad, but it is not unlimited, and every inquiry should be built to satisfy the tests courts apply.

• The power exists. "[T]he power of inquiry — with process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927).

• It reaches as far as Congress's power to legislate. "[T]he scope of the power of inquiry . . . is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution." Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504 n.15 (1975) (quoting Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959)). Because the Elections Clause lets Congress "make or alter" election regulations, and Congress funds and oversees every federal agency involved, the legislative footing for an election-interference inquiry is unusually strong.

• It must serve a valid legislative purpose and respect individual rights. There is no power "to expose for the sake of exposure." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957).

• Requests for the President's own information face heightened scrutiny. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. 848 (2020), sets out special considerations when Congress subpoenas the President's information, "whether personal or official." Records of agencies such as DOJ, DHS, ICE, the EAC, and USPS fall under the ordinary standard.

• Disputes with the executive branch are resolved by accommodation first. The branches have an "implicit constitutional mandate to seek optimal accommodation." United States v. AT&T, 567 F.2d 121, 127 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

• Limits from Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024). The Court held that the President has "exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions" of the Justice Department and that "Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President's actions on subjects within his 'conclusive and preclusive' constitutional authority." The lesson for drafting: investigate and regulate agency conduct, officials, funds, and procedures, and write reforms that bind officials and agencies, not the President's core Article II powers. Congress's power over the time, place, and manner of congressional elections is Congress's own, not the President's.

Stating the legislative purpose

Committees should adopt a written authorizing resolution or chair's memorandum before issuing any subpoena. A model statement:

The Committee is investigating federal executive actions affecting the administration of the 2026 federal elections — including executive orders, Justice Department demands for state voter-registration data, the use of federal and DHS databases for voter verification, Postal Service ballot-mail policies, and plans for any deployment of armed federal personnel near election sites — in order to determine whether existing law, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 592–595, 52 U.S.C. § 10307, the NVRA, HAVA, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and the Privacy Act, is adequate; whether appropriated funds were spent as Congress directed; and what legislation under Article I, Section 4 and Congress's enforcement powers is needed to protect state administration of elections and the rights of voters.

Investigative topic	Constitutional and legislative hook	Possible legislation it informs
Executive orders directing the EAC or agencies on election rules	Elections Clause; Necessary and Proper Clause; HAVA (EAC independence)	Codify that no executive officer may alter federal election procedures without statutory authority
DOJ voter-roll lawsuits and the voter-list review program	Elections Clause; Civil Rights Act of 1960; NVRA; HAVA; Privacy Act; appropriations	Limit federal collection and sharing of voter data; Privacy Act amendments
SAVE database use for voter verification	Appropriations; Privacy Act; NVRA	Accuracy, notice, and appeal safeguards for any citizenship check
Armed federal personnel near polling places	18 U.S.C. §§ 592–593; Voting Rights Act § 11(b); appropriations	Clarify and strengthen bans; civil remedies; reporting requirements
USPS ballot-mail policies	Postal Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 7); 39 U.S.C.	Ballot-mail service standards and Postal Regulatory Commission review
Pressure on individual states through litigation or grants	Spending Clause; appropriations; Elections Clause	Bar conditioning disaster or other federal funds on changes to state election law

What is a lawful five-phase investigative plan for the 120th Congress?

Phase 1 — Organize and preserve (first 30 days). Adopt an authorizing resolution or chair's memo with the legislative purpose above. Send preservation letters (see below) to every relevant agency on day one. Designate bipartisan staff leads and a records custodian. Invite the minority to participate in document review and witness interviews.

Phase 2 — Gather the public record (days 1–60). Collect every court filing, opinion, and transcript in the cases listed above, including declarations and admissions by government attorneys (for example, the Rhode Island acknowledgment about sharing voter data with DHS). Request reports from the Government Accountability Office, the inspectors general of DOJ, DHS, and USPS, the Congressional Research Service, and the EAC.

Phase 3 — Voluntary requests and accommodation (days 30–90). Send written document requests with reasonable deadlines, offer rolling productions and in-camera review for sensitive material, and record every exchange. A documented good-faith accommodation process is what courts look for under AT&T and Mazars.

Phase 4 — Compulsory process (when accommodation fails). Issue narrowly drawn subpoenas tied to the stated purpose, beginning with agency records and career officials before senior officials. Follow the enforcement options in our subpoena playbook: civil enforcement, criminal contempt referral under 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194, and appropriations or nomination leverage.

Phase 5 — Report and legislate. Hold public hearings, publish a written report with findings separated from allegations, make criminal referrals only where the evidence supports them, and introduce the reforms below.

Which committees have jurisdiction?

Chamber	Committee	Focus
House	Committee on House Administration	Federal elections, the EAC, election law
House	Judiciary	DOJ Civil Rights Division, voting-rights enforcement, criminal statutes
House	Homeland Security	DHS, ICE, CISA election-security support, SAVE
House	Oversight and Government Reform	Government-wide oversight, USPS, Privacy Act, records
House	Armed Services	Any role for the military or National Guard near elections
House	Appropriations	Funding conditions and limitations on all agencies above
Senate	Rules and Administration	Federal elections, the EAC
Senate	Judiciary	DOJ, voting-rights and criminal statutes
Senate	Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs	DHS, USPS, Privacy Act, records
Senate	Armed Services	Military and Guard issues
Senate	Appropriations	Funding conditions

Members in the minority can still act: send letters (as a group of senators did in July 2026), request GAO and inspector general reviews, hold shadow or forum hearings, use the "seven-member rule" (5 U.S.C. § 2954), which lets seven members of the House Oversight Committee or five members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee request agency information (its enforceability in court remains unsettled), file Freedom of Information Act requests, and file amicus briefs.

How can Congress back up the states?

The Constitution makes state and local officials the front line of American elections. Congress can support them without commandeering them:

• Invite them as voluntary witnesses. Secretaries of state, state attorneys general, county clerks, and election directors of both parties can testify about federal demands, threats, and resource needs. Their testimony is often the most credible record a committee can build.

• Request their records by agreement. Ask states for copies of federal letters, data demands, litigation filings, and communications with DOJ, DHS, and USPS. A written records-sharing agreement can address confidentiality and state privacy laws.

• Coordinate with state legislatures and state inquiries. Where a state legislature or state official is examining the same events, joint timelines and shared public records strengthen both inquiries.

• Fund them. Election security grants under HAVA and stable EAC funding let states harden systems and protect workers.

• Protect them. Election officials and poll workers have faced threats; federal law should protect them and their families from harassment and doxxing.

• Defend their authority in court. Congress can file amicus briefs in cases involving the Elections Clause and federal statutes Congress wrote.

How should Congress preserve evidence and what should it request?

Preservation comes first

Congressional subpoenas expire at the end of each Congress (Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), and records, chat messages, and body-camera footage can be lost under routine retention schedules. On day one, committees should send preservation letters to DOJ (Civil Rights Division and Office of the Attorney General), DHS (Office of the Secretary, ICE, Homeland Security Investigations, USCIS for SAVE, CISA), the Department of Defense and National Guard Bureau, the EAC, USPS and the Postal Regulatory Commission, the Executive Office of the President (for records subject to the Presidential Records Act), and the National Archives. Letters should:

• cite the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. ch. 31 and 33), the Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 1519 (obstruction of congressional proceedings and destruction of records);

• expressly cover text messages, Signal and other encrypted or ephemeral apps, personal email and devices used for official business, calendars, call logs, photos, videos, body-worn camera footage, and database access logs;

• request suspension of auto-delete settings and written confirmation within 10 days.

Committees should also ask state election officials to preserve federal communications and remind them of the 22-month federal election-record preservation duty under 52 U.S.C. § 20701.

Documents, photos, and videos to request

Category	Examples
Executive orders	Drafts, legal reviews by the Office of Legal Counsel and agency counsel, communications with the EAC about Executive Orders 14248 and 14399
Voter-roll demands	Demand letters to states, the voter-list review program plan, data-sharing agreements with DHS, legal memos on the Civil Rights Act of 1960, records of what data 18+ states produced and where it is stored
SAVE	System-of-records notices, accuracy studies, error rates, data-matching agreements with states, Privacy Act compliance reviews
Polling-place enforcement	Any policy or guidance on enforcement at or near election sites, deployment plans, legal analyses of 18 U.S.C. § 592, after-action reports, body-camera and surveillance footage from any incident at an election site (including the reported Syracuse incident)
USPS	Ballot-mail policy documents, service-performance data, Postal Regulatory Commission submissions
Funding leverage	Any communications conditioning federal grants or disaster funds on changes to state election law
Litigation	Internal approval memos for each voter-roll and election lawsuit, departures from normal approval practice, career-staff dissents

Witnesses

Witness	Why	Approach
State secretaries of state and election directors (both parties)	Firsthand accounts of federal demands and their effect	Voluntary invitation
Career DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys and former officials	Normal practice versus 2025–2026 practice	Voluntary interview; subpoena only if needed; whistleblower protections
EAC commissioners and staff	Agency independence and executive-order pressure	Invitation, then subpoena if needed
DHS, ICE, HSI, and USCIS officials	Polling-place guidance; SAVE use	Document requests first, then testimony
USPS leadership and Postal Regulatory Commission	Ballot-mail service	Hearing invitation
Senior political appointees (Attorney General, DHS Secretary)	Policy decisions and authorizations	Last, after the documentary record is built
Voters and poll workers affected	Real-world impact	Voluntary, with privacy protections

For current and former officials, review our posts on whistleblower protections and on executive privilege, including the limits of privilege for advisers such as Stephen Miller. Executive privilege belongs to the President and must be asserted specifically, document by document or question by question. District courts have rejected claims that senior presidential advisers are absolutely immune from appearing before Congress (Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008); Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 415 F. Supp. 3d 148 (D.D.C. 2019)).

What guardrails keep this investigation lawful and fair?

An investigation that protects elections must itself follow the rule of law. These guardrails protect witnesses, career civil servants, members, and staff — and make the record durable.

• State the purpose and stay within it. Every request and subpoena should tie back to the written legislative purpose (Watkins; Mazars).

• Protect career staff and whistleblowers. Career employees who followed lawful instructions are witnesses, not targets. Use voluntary interviews first, allow counsel, and remind agencies that federal employees have a statutory right to communicate with Congress (5 U.S.C. § 7211), that obstructing a congressional inquiry is a crime (18 U.S.C. § 1505), and that whistleblower reprisal is prohibited (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)).

• Separate findings from allegations. Reports should label what is proven by documents or testimony, what is disputed, and what remains under review. Use "allegedly" until facts are established.

• Respect immunity carefully. Grants of use immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6005 can compromise later prosecutions (United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir.), modified, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). Consult the Justice Department as the statute requires, and weigh accountability through prosecution against the value of public testimony.

• Avoid bills of attainder and punishment by legislation. Reforms should be general rules that apply to any official in any administration, not measures that single out named individuals for punishment (United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946)).

• Know the limits of Speech or Debate protection. Committee work is protected, but press releases and newsletters about it are not (Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979)). Members should keep public statements accurate and measured.

• Protect voters' privacy. Committees that receive voter data should limit access, avoid publishing personal information, and return or destroy it when no longer needed.

• Include the minority. Bipartisan access to documents and interviews strengthens the record and its credibility with the public and the courts.

• Stay neutral on outcomes. The investigation concerns process and authority, not who won any race. It should not cast doubt on certified results without evidence.

What reforms can Congress pass to protect future elections?

Courts can stop unlawful actions one case at a time, often after the damage is done. Congress can set clear rules in advance. Each reform below rests on Congress's own constitutional authority and applies to every future administration. Several are written to bind agencies and officials, consistent with Trump v. United States. For model text, see our model bills and veto-proof reforms posts.

#	Reform	Constitutional basis	What it does
1	Election Administration Independence Act	Elections Clause; Necessary and Proper Clause	Declares that no executive officer or agency may alter federal election procedures, the federal registration form, or state election rules except as Congress expressly authorizes; reinforces the EAC's independence
2	Voter Data Privacy Act	Elections Clause; Privacy Act; Spending Clause	Limits federal collection of state voter files to specific, documented statutory purposes; bars bulk transfer of voter data to DHS or law enforcement without statutory authority; requires notice, security, and destruction schedules
3	SAVE accuracy and due-process safeguards	Appropriations; Privacy Act	Requires published error rates, independent audits, notice to affected voters, and a fast appeal before any removal based on a federal database match
4	Strengthen 18 U.S.C. §§ 592–593	Elections Clause; Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement	Defines "armed men" to include armed federal law enforcement; sets a buffer zone around polling places, early-voting sites, drop boxes, and election offices; adds a civil cause of action for states and voters; requires public reporting of any federal enforcement near election sites
5	No Funds for Polling-Place Deployments	Appropriations Clause	Bars use of appropriated funds to deploy troops or armed federal agents to election sites, except as § 592 allows
6	DOJ Election Litigation Transparency Act	Necessary and Proper Clause; oversight	Requires the Civil Rights Division to report to Congress the legal basis, approval chain, and data sought in each election-related suit against a state
7	Ballot Mail Protection Act	Postal Clause	Sets ballot-mail service standards, requires Postal Regulatory Commission review before changes affecting ballot mail, and requires postmark consistency
8	National ballot-receipt rule (optional)	Elections Clause	As the Watson decision recognized, a uniform national receipt deadline for federal elections is Congress's choice to make; Congress can set one or expressly leave it to the states
9	Election Worker Protection Act	Elections Clause; Commerce Clause	Federal protections against threats, intimidation, and doxxing of election officials and poll workers and their families
10	No Coercive Conditions on Federal Funds	Spending Clause	Bars agencies from conditioning disaster relief, public-safety grants, or other federal funds on changes to state election laws not required by statute
11	Stable EAC and state election security funding	Appropriations; HAVA	Multiyear grants so states can maintain secure systems, audits, and trained staff
12	Strengthen election-record preservation	Elections Clause	Updates 52 U.S.C. § 20701 to cover electronic records and federal agency election communications, and requires federal agencies to preserve election-related communications for 22 months

The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 shows that election safeguards can pass with bipartisan support when they are framed as rules for every future election. These reforms should be drafted in that spirit.

Let's talk

Free and fair elections are not a Republican or Democratic value. They are the foundation of every other right Americans hold, and every citizen should care whether the rules are followed. If you are a member of the 120th Congress, a committee staffer, a state election official, or a career public servant who wants to build a lawful record and lasting reforms, the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program can help with investigative planning, subpoena strategy, preservation letters, and model legislation. Contact us here.

Companion resources for the 120th Congress

All available in our Government Oversight blog category:

• Enforcing Congressional Subpoenas: A 120th Congress Playbook

• Federal interference in the 2026 midterms

• The USPS ballot-mail rule and the Supreme Court's stay denial

• Watson v. RNC and ballot-receipt deadlines

• The SAVE database: our amicus brief and the Supreme Court's order allowing it to resume

• The Justice Department's ballot demand against California

• Protecting federal whistleblowers

• War powers after 2026

• Executive privilege and Stephen Miller

• Accountability and deterrence

• Veto-proof reforms and model bills

• An open letter to restore checks and balances

• Model articles of impeachment and an impeachment investigative plan

Frequently asked questions

Can the President change federal election rules by executive order? No. The Constitution gives election regulation to the states and to Congress. A federal court permanently blocked key provisions of Executive Order 14248 on that basis.

Can Congress make rules for state-run elections? For congressional elections, yes: the Elections Clause lets Congress "make or alter" state regulations of the times, places, and manner of elections. Congress also enforces the constitutional amendments that protect the right to vote.

Is it legal for armed federal agents to be at polling places? Federal law makes it a crime for federal officers to bring or keep troops or armed men at a place where an election is held unless needed "to repel armed enemies of the United States" (18 U.S.C. § 592). Courts have not fully defined how close to a polling place this reaches, which is why Congress should clarify it.

Did the Justice Department win its lawsuits for state voter rolls? As of mid-November 2026, every court to rule on the merits had ruled against the Justice Department, including the Sixth Circuit. Some appeals remain pending.

Can a congressional committee subpoena executive-branch officials about elections? Yes, if the subpoena serves a valid legislative purpose and the committee first tries to accommodate the executive branch. Special considerations apply to the President's own information under Trump v. Mazars.

What happens to subpoenas at the end of a Congress? They expire. Committees must reissue them in the new Congress, which is why early preservation letters matter.

How can Congress help state election officials? By inviting their testimony, sharing records by agreement, funding election security, protecting election workers from threats, and enacting clear limits on federal interference.

Disclaimer

This post is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Facts about pending litigation are current as of November 13, 2026 and may change; readers should check the latest filings. Allegations described here have not all been proven. Biazzo Law, PLLC filed amicus briefs in some of the matters discussed.