Politics
Column: The presidential race won't be over on election night. Here's what can go wrong after that
The presidential election is still too close to call, but here are three predictions you can take to the bank:
First, we won’t know who won on election night. Three potentially decisive states — Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — are notoriously slow at counting. A winner may not emerge before the end of the week.
Second, no matter who wins, Donald Trump will charge that the vote was rigged. He made that claim in 2020, when he lost decisively to Joe Biden. He claimed (again without evidence) that he was robbed of popular votes in 2016, even though he won the election. He has already charged that Democrats will cheat this year. “It’s the only way they’re going to win,” he claimed.
Third, if Trump loses, he will challenge the outcome in the courts, just as he did in 2020. “It’s not over on election day; it’s over on inauguration day,” Trump campaign manager Chris LaCivita said earlier this year. So get ready for long and bitter legal battles that could end up in the Supreme Court with its Trump-friendly majority.
We’ve been here before. Four years ago, Trump tried to undo Biden’s election with a barrage of legal challenges that failed. He asked Republican state legislators to overturn results and demanded that then-Vice President Mike Pence block the count of electoral votes. All refused. A mob of angry, deluded Trump supporters tried to stop the process by invading the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; that failed, too.
The guardrails of democracy held — and legal scholars say those guardrails are a little stronger now.
“I’m very confident that the candidate who wins on Nov. 5 will be inaugurated on Jan. 20,” said Justin Levitt, who teaches election law at Loyola Law School in L.A. But a lot can happen between those two dates, he warned.
“There can be litigation. There can be delays. There will be a lot of misinformation, some of it spread on purpose,” he said. “There are real opportunities for unrest, maybe even violence.”
Here are four scenarios in which a close election could run into trouble:
Asking the courts to decide
“There is always the risk of another Bush v Gore,” Rick Hasen of UCLA Law School wrote recently, referring to the 2000 Supreme Court decision that decided that year’s presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. “If the election comes down to a few thousand votes or less in a state that is crucial for an electoral college victory, then we’ll expect both sides to litigate as hard as they can.”
In Pennsylvania, for example, Republicans filed a lawsuit complaining the state’s rules for accepting absentee ballots that arrive with small errors, like a missing date on the envelope, are too lenient. The state Supreme Court left it up to the state’s 67 counties to decide how to handle the ballots.
If those ballots could swing the election, the Trump campaign could argue that it’s unfair for counties to adopt different rules. A similar issue prompted the high court to act in Bush vs. Gore.
Republicans have already filed more than 100 lawsuits challenging election rules in several states to improve their chances after election day.
Refusing to certify results
What if local officials refuse to certify election results they don’t like?
Most legal scholars say courts are almost certain to knock down those attempts — but they could still lead to delays, legal battles and potential unrest.
The once-obscure issue of certification achieved more notoriety after Georgia’s Republican-led election board issued new rules requiring county officials to investigate potential irregularities before they certify results.
Certification has traditionally been an administrative action in which election boards merely confirm that the compiled results match up with what precincts have reported. Investigating allegations of irregularity or fraud is up to law enforcement agencies, not election boards.
In several counties around the country, pro-Trump election officials have briefly refused to certify election results, but courts have uniformly ruled against them. Two Georgia courts have already ruled that the state election board’s new rules are invalid.
“Certification is not likely to produce a [constitutional] crisis,” said Edward Foley, a leading election law expert at Ohio State University. “The courts are going to handle it as they already do.”
The danger of violence
But all those challenges raise the prospect of violence.
On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump told his followers: “If you don’t fight like hell, you won’t have a country anymore.”
This year, he has revived that warning, telling supporters that the stakes of the election are existential — literally. Last month, in Wisconsin, he told a rally that if he doesn’t win, migrants “will walk into your kitchen. They will cut your throat.”
“You won’t have a country anymore,” he said, again.
Violence is always possible, even likely. Trump has already been the target of two assassination attempts. But law enforcement agencies have spent four years preparing to protect polling places, tabulation centers, election officials and judges.
Detroit’s tabulation center, which Trump claimed (without evidence) was a hotbed of fraud, has been outfitted with bulletproof glass. Maricopa County, Ariz., where election officials have been attacked by pro-Trump zealots, is stationing snipers on the roof. The U.S. Capitol Police have worked to ensure that Jan. 6 cannot recur.
In the end, election law scholars say violence need not derail the outcome.
“I do worry about it,” said Levitt. “We live in a climate where some people consider threats of violence an acceptable tactic. … But it’s not going to affect the outcome of the election any more than it did on January 6.”
Congress gets the final say — again
Under the Constitution, Congress formally counts the electoral votes on Jan. 6. That normally ceremonial process almost went off the rails in 2021, when Trump urged Republicans to block legitimately elected Biden electors from swing states. Two-thirds of House Republicans supported the scheme, but Democrats and moderate Republicans quashed it.
That scenario is less likely to recur, thanks to a law Congress passed in 2022, making it harder to challenge electoral votes and clarifying that the vice president has no power to direct the outcome.
Still, if one-fifth of the members of each chamber object to a state’s electoral votes, both houses must vote to accept or reject them. If both chambers have GOP majorities, the outcome could come down to a handful of moderate Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
There’s also a wild card in the list of potential nightmares: What happens if the electoral vote is a tie, 269 to 269?
In that case, the House of Representatives would choose the next president under a rule that would favor Republicans. Instead of a normal vote by individual members of the House, each state’s House delegation would get one vote — meaning California and North Dakota would get equal weight. In the current House, 26 states have mostly Republican House members; only 22, including California’s, are dominated by Democrats. (Two states are evenly divided.)
A tie hasn’t happened since 1800, when Thomas Jefferson tied with Aaron Burr. (Jefferson won the runoff.) Polymarket, a prediction market, puts the odds of a tie this year at 4%.
Misinformation will remain a danger
This is not a “both sides” issue. Only one party has told its followers that if it loses, the only possible reason will be that the election was stolen.
It doesn’t seem to matter whether the challenges are plausible. In 2020, they weren’t, as evidenced by Trump’s long string of losses in the courts. But polls this month have found that most GOP voters believe election fraud is likely to occur this year even though no significant instances have been proven in decades.
Claiming that every election is rigged is not only part of Trump’s political message; it has become part of his business model.
Last time, he raised more than $250 million after election day with his claims. Only $13 million of those donations funded legal efforts to reverse the result. The rest went into Trump’s political coffers, giving him an early start toward his next campaign.
And the misinformation Trump has cultivated won’t go away after inauguration day. He has made bitter post-election battles a durable feature of American politics.
“It is profoundly unhealthy for democracy,” said Levitt. “It is a long-term cancer in the system.”
Read more McManus columns on the election:
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Los Angeles, Ca28 minutes ago'Top Gun: Maverick' actor identified as victim stabbed to death in Tarzana
-
Detroit, MI50 minutes agoStorm chances return, which could impact Motor City Pride, graduations this weekend across Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA58 minutes agoHilton campaigns in San Francisco as California primary votes still being counted
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoPackage fire outside Boston’s Museum of African American History under investigation
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoRockies beat reporter Patrick Saunders to leave Denver Post
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoSeattle granted NFL Franchise on this day 52 years ago
