Constitutional Resolution if Election Fraud Found

[NJCher]

If instances of electoral fraud were found, or suspected, in a presidential election, what would be the constitutional procedure for resolution?

Here are a few responses from a Quora page asking the above question:

Thomas Lauterio ·
PhD from Rutgers University ·
2y
Voting laws are set at the state and that is where they are prosecuted unless there is something that spans the US Constitution. So the courts would prosecute the individuals and this has happened many times. It wouldn’t affect elections except in rare cases where outcomes could be in question. Because it takes many months to bring a case to court. One election in Paterson NJ (where I was born) was actually overturned because there was a video of the candidates brother manipulating ballots from the election. So the judge ordered a “redo”. But mostly fraudsters are jailed.

------------------------

Alfred Montestruc
Read history a lot, amateur historian.3y

Assuming a President of the United States actually did steal an election, what could be done about it? If a presidential election was fraudulent, is there a legal framework to correct it?
Not after the US Congress certifies the election. It has specific procedures to try to stop a fraudulent power grab, which many people including President Trump attempted after the election till 6-January- 2021, after that it is suck it up buttercup —for the 2020 election Biden/Harris are certified on 06/January 2021 from inauguration day 2021 till inauguration day 2025.

Now that does not mean you cannot continue to investigate, nor does it mean if you can prove individuals committed crimes associated with election rigging they cannot be prosecuted.

They can, and should.

It just means Biden/Harris are certified till Inauguration day 2025.

Unless you get enough evidence to impeach, convict & remove both of them. Then unless the Republicans retake the house in 2022, and you impeach & convict both after that, Nancy Pelosi becomes president. Sweet huh?

But if Republicans retake the house, and rapidly impeach convict & remove (remember you need 2/3 in the senate), then the Republican speaker of the house becomes president.

More at link: https://www.quora.com/If-instances-of-electoral-fraud-were-found-or-suspected-in-a-presidential-election-what-would-be-the-constitutional-procedure-for-resolution

[SSJVegeta]

1. Unfortunately everything done to suppress the vote, throw out completely valid votes, etc, was legal

Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2025, 11:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Everything done to win this election was legal. A couple people to blame for not getting a comprehensive election reform bill passed before 2024?

Sinema and Manchin

[NJCher]

3. if that was correct

I don't think this judge would be wasting his time on the 27th.

Also, unless you're an attorney and one specializing in Constitutional law, I don't think you have much credibility in pronouncing everything they did as "legal."

Now everybody: watch. I'll get a post back and it won't even address the issues I've just mentioned. Hmmm, wonder why.

[EdmondDantes_]

5. I mean citing Quora isn't exactly citing authority

And given Marc Elias hasn't said that there was anything illegal in the 2024 election, that speaks volumes.

As for a judge holding a hearing, Trump had 60 something hearings about claimed irregularities in the 2020 and only one resulted in anything changing and that was a miniscule number of votes in one state. The people pushing this seemingly haven't heard of ticket splitting. That's not evidence no matter how many times they repeat that there was a drop off between the presidential race and down ballot races.

[NJCher]

12. I talked to an attorney

before I posted it. Would you like to know what he said? He said there isn't much to go on.

Maybe you didn't read my OP close enough to see that I selected two answers that are by well educated responders. The first one is a Ph.D. from Rutgers, where I used to teach.

The next one is an "amateur historian." I know a couple "amateur historians" and they are very accomplished people. One does historical murals across my state. You can see his work all throughout NJ and parts of Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia.. Oh, and to be able to get that many commissions, you have to know your history because these murals have to be accurate and they cannot have mistakes.They are very expensive.

I don't even know why you would mention trump's court cases. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the well researched cases that are coming up. Dump just did them for misinformation purposes and we all know that.

Your statement about ticket splitting tells me that you haven't read the sites.

Are you perhaps a trump supporter? Just asking.

[SSJVegeta]

14. I seriously recommend pursuing some meditation and mindfulness exercises. Finding a non-political hobby to pursue.

This obsession is not healthy...

[NJCher]

15. 40 years of meditation

Including Silva, Gateway,& transcendental. Still going.

How about you? How many years of meditation and mindfulness do you have?

[SSJVegeta]

17. See avatar.

[NJCher]

20. tell you what I see about you

post removals.

[EdmondDantes_]

33. There are some climate scientists who don't believe in climate change

Just because one has credentials (or alleges they have credentials because it's the Internet where nobody can tell I'm actually a dog), doesn't inherently make them correct, especially when the vast majority of people who would be position to make a difference don't believe it. Like Marc Elias, like Kamala Harris, like Hillary Clinton.

Sorry but when you're making extraordinary claims, you need to provide extraordinary evidence. So far you've just said things like "people know where to look" instead of actually linking to things with the actual evidence.

[SSJVegeta]

8. There simply is no widespread evidence of election fraud. Eventually you gotta move on.

The things they are doing now, everyday, THOSE things are illegal. Focusing on how to best address the present and prevent these horrible things from continuing, getting worse and happening in the future, is probably the best course of action.

[NJCher]

11. you simply have to understand

that you aren't qualified to make this judgement.

You gotta' move on.

[SSJVegeta]

13. I am actually qualified to make the judgement there is no widespread evidence of election fraud

As are you. Especially since you have not provided any.

[NJCher]

16. everyone here knows where to go for that information

The purpose of this thread is not to debate that. It's to discuss what will happen when dump and vance are found guilty of defrauding the American people. Again.

[SSJVegeta]

18. Regardless, it probably wont be related to the election.

[Blue_Roses]

30. I just find this view extremely naive

and quite frankly careless.

We have an unelected, narcissistic, billionaire pillaging our government institutions and doing who-knows-what to our private and confidential information. Just that alone, raises red flags.

[SSJVegeta]

34. Everything you say is true

Except the "unelected" part.

I do not love the circumstances in which he was elected. And they should very well mostly be illegal. Nonetheless they are not, and he was, unfortunately, legally elected.

[Blue_Roses]

35. Musk was not elected

My point was that by having someone with that much money and the ability to have any resource at his finger tips puts it in the realm of "possibilities" at what could happen. Trump is not smart enough to know how to use technology to his advantage. Musk and others do.

[SSJVegeta]

37. Lollll all these billionaires look the same!!

I concede you are 1000% correct

[EndlessWire]

27. Excuse me

I don't think he had the right to run in the first place. Had the SC not decided he could be on the ballot despite inciting insurrection, he would not be the Pres now. And, you know, they also insulated rump from absolutely anything he is now doing to terrorize us.

And, I think something wonky happened in the election, and they will repeat it in 2026 and 2028. It would behoove us to figure it out, and not just walk away.

[Ms. Toad]

19. When a complaint is filed,

the general rule is that the complaint gets a hearing. Unlike the Supreme Court, which gets to choose which cases to hear, lower courts don't get to say, "Hey - I don't want to hear this case."

There are exceptions - such as the opposing counsel moves to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or a motion for summary judgment is granted. I saw the docket, but couldn't find it earlier when I took a quick look, but I don't believe any dispositive motions were filed - which means the case gets heard.

A hearing on the 27th says next to nothing about the merits of the case.

[NJCher]

22. purpose of the discussion

makes some assumptions for the purpose of seeing how the situation might play out. It's unprecedented and it really is something to think about. You know the old saying: be careful what you wish for.

The purpose of the discussion is not the hearing on the 27th. There is another thread for that.

It's to project what could happen if fraud is found.

[Ms. Toad]

24. I was responding to the specific assertion you made:

if that was correct I don't think this judge would be wasting his time on the 27th.

Whether it goes anywhere or not, it is just what happens when a complaint is filed.

[NJCher]

25. you said "generally"

and in my experience, it seems common to ask that the case be dismissed for the reasons you cited and then some.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the Smart Elections research on Rockland?

[mikelewis]

9. Maybe not...

There turns out... there are discrepancies... and not like the 2004 discrepancies. This might be discoverable in the the hand recount. Let's see if we can get a recount and go from there. Overvotes are the differences between the votes for Senate and the Votes for President. There are some odd numbers... numbers even Bush 04 didn't have. Something stinks... and this might be the stinky diaper that leads right to Musk and co.

[NJCher]

2. a possibility

If we are able to take the House at the midterm elections, whomever is elected speaker could become president.

Just dealing in hypotheticals here. We don't even know for sure that the judge in the Rockland County case will decide on March 27 or just listen to evidence. Whatever the case might be, I personally think that they will find election fraud.

Now I think I am starting to understand why Harris didn't contest. It was going to be years of investigation and litigation.

However, seeing what a horror show trump is, and especially after today's seat-of-the-pants war planning by text with Hegseth, there could be a massive shift in voters caring enough to vote in the midterms. Social Security will continue to be threatened. Musk is showing his stripes and people hate him.

Furthermore, just look at what Bernie and AOC are doing in the red states. Huge turnouts for their rallies.

This is just one scenario. I'm sure there are others that other posters will imagine.

[MichMan]

4. Only if 2/3 of the Senate voted to remove him

Do you think there will be will 67 Senate votes for impeachment when Democrats have less than 50 now?

In 2026 there are 22 Republican seats up for re election. Democrats would need to win 20 of them plus hold all 13 seats currently held by Democrats.

[Meowmee]

6. I don't think 2/3 senate will convict him though

I have forgotten what the exact requirements are for starting the impeachment in the house.
I am not hopeful for this but still I would support it strongly.

[Polybius]

10. The problem with that is that you would need 67 votes to convict in the Senate

Even if a Republican Senator wants to convict Trump and Vance, they won't do it if it would result in Jeffries becoming President, and I can't really blame them either.

If I were a Trump hating Republican Senator, I'd support a compromise. Impeach and remove Trump/Vance, but only if a more acceptable Republican replaces him. Johnson would work now. Romney would be a better compromise, however.

[NJCher]

26. we don't know the political atmosphere

and the mood of the country at that time. All kinds of things can happen when things get volatile, and if you saw Rachel tonight, you'll know what I'm talking about: demonstrations everywhere. Anger. Republicans scared to even show up for a town hall. An incident of colossal stupidity that shows our national security is at risk because the people in this administration have no experience in the areas they are managing. We should not just assume that rules are rules and that they preclude certain outcomes.

[Polybius]

31. True, but we would need to pick up 20 seats

That's never happened in US history. And a lot of those Senate seats are in very Red safe states.

[mr715]

40. And nothing is going to change those votes.

I remember my naive days when Jan 6 was so odious I thought it'd be a bipartisan conviction, or at least a bar for serving in office again.

[MichMan]

21. Here is another possibility

Since we are dealing with hypotheticals

Democrats win the House and all 33 Senate seats up for election in 2026, thus giving them the required 2/3 majority. The House selects AOC as speaker.

Trump and Vance are both impeached simultaneously, thus making AOC the next in line as the president.

[NJCher]

23. yeah, sigh

[MichMan]

29. "We should not just assume that rules are rules and that they preclude certain outcomes."

[mr715]

41. Could they be impeached simultaneously?

I realize this is a process question about a hypothetical.

[Polybius]

7. Once the President takes office, it's too late to redo the election or install the real winner

The US Constitution states the ways to replace a President:

1) When his/her term ends (January 20th, every 4 years (if reelected, 8 years)
2) If the President resigns, the VP becomes President
3) If he/she dies in office, the VP takes over
4) If the President is impeached and removed, the VP takes over
5) 25th Amendment (too tired to explain this one)

That's it. Once you're in, you're in. There's no mechanism for replacement if there's fraud. Harris can not be installed as President, even if it's proven that he rigged the election. Best we can do is impeach and remove them both, and get President Johnson (an improvement imo over Trump/Vance).

I also expect the Dems to take over the House. The Senate, not so much.

[Think. Again.]

28. Yes, this effort to uncover any election fraud...

...is obviously being done to guide us through any future attempts.

And thank goodness for that!

[Kid Berwyn]

32. SCROTUS forgave trumpf's treason.

They’ll say his election theft is OK, too.

But I fully support we try to toss him and them to the curb ASAFP.

[mikelewis]

36. Even if fraud it found, it's very unlikely the election would be uncertified.... as nuts as that sounds...

If you steal it fair and square, it's sort of legally yours. As bizarre as that sounds, it's not going to change much. It would be nice and if there was a Congress then maybe but there's not and the Judiciary can't and won't do a thing to change it. I'm hoping the Aliens come down and eat the entire government and the Janitor is the last person in succession... I'm good with whatever Fred says...

[NJCher]

38. we have to re-write most of our laws and

recreate our government for a new age, and it's not just because of trump, putin, and greed. It is also because we did not make the changes that needed to be made when big tech evolved.

We were warned. Anyone who reads Kara Swisher knows what she thinks. Kara also made appearances on our local public radio, WNYC.

She's not the only one, though. Ezra Klein's podcast covered many topics in this area and Ezra accumulated a line-up of tech critics that are worth listening to for what needs to be done.

I'll bet I'm missing a few from Wired Magazine.

A lot of these people are going to transition (or dead if you prefer that) on out of here: trump, putin, for example. They are old and in poor health.

People like Vance and Patel, Gabbard, Witkoff, the whole group will be prosecuted. I think the trials alone will last through 2035.

We will get the House back. Senate is up in the air, but the mood of the country is such that many will consider resigning. That is due to the fact that many of them did something illegal, and as the prosecutions continue, they will understand that they might possibly mitigate some of a sentence if they get the hell out.

We have not even seen the worst of the scandals that are going to come out. A good clue is what you see Chip Roy and Mike Lee trying to do with the ICC. Link: https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-sen-lee-introduce-legislation-deport-international-criminal-court-icc

They are afraid of something. Otherwise, why would you do this?

I see a rocky road for us, but I also see us solving these problems (republicans), which have been a thorn in our side for so long. They will have so wrecked their reputation that they will be persona non grata after all this comes out.

[mikelewis]

42. Well... I have watched this story too many times and guess what...

The good guys always lose... but what is heartening is... At least they still have to steal it.

Remember the Bush Years? Maybe that was before your time... but we thought Cheney was the Dark Lord and Prince of Darkness... now he's a doddering old man with no power. It's sad to see somewhat...

I mean, I hated the guy but to see him so pathetic and beaten by someone as paltry at Trump. Even his daughter is kicked to the curb... no power, no backing... what a legacy...

[NJCher]

39. also

I think the SC is not going to cooperate so much with them. While Roberts is probably for Project 2024, he and Coney Barrett are going to dissent on a few issues--either that, or refuse to take the case. They only do 20 a year anyway, so it would be easy to let the lower Federal court decide and walk away "clean."

[WarGamer]

43. deja vu... magats were talking like this in 2021.

[NJCher]

44. would you mind

finding a few examples? Post back, because I never read any Magat stuff. Cut and paste.

[NJCher]

46. also, would you please

find the equivalent of a Smart Elections in the Magat community? I'd like to see if their researchers published a web site with documented figures like the ones at Smart Elections. Did they get the election data precinct by precinct, straight from the source? I'd like to see how they compiled theirs and compare them to how Smart Elections compiled the ones they obtained directly from the source.

One more thing: have you visited any of the pages with graphics prepared by the Smart Elections People? Here's the result of one of their comparisons. I'd like to see how you answer the question:

Do you think it's realistic that 909 voters voted for Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and two voters chose to vote for Kamala Harris in Rockland County NY district 55?

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:d77gsmi7rgodgiijbrkv3cwc/post/3lgyxoc3pik2z

Looking forward to your answers.

[NJCher]

47. trying to help you out

I found this, but I'm pretty sure it's not MAGAT. It's Heritage Foundation and they did find some people guilty of election fraud!! Trouble is they were republicans.

Sigh. So that won't work. Too bad.

https://electionfraud.heritage.org

But wow, 138 cases.