...to Preserve, Protect...

When a person assumes the office of the President of the United States, on inauguration day, the elected official takes the oath of office.  The oath is found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.  The oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 

In my opinion, the President is failing to “preserve, protect” the Constitution.  The defense of the Constitution is subject to definition, but it would be my hope the President would protect our country from invasion from an enemy force, other than what the President has referred to as “an invasion” of undocumented citizens.

To be clear, I want to present some facts that may indicate my opinion is correct.

Reported on August 18 2025 by the New York Post among other reporting news agencies…

President Trump unveiled plans Monday (August 18th) to sign an executive order claiming to “help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections” by banning both mail-in voting and electronic tabulation machines. 

“I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES,” Trump declared on Truth Social.

The president did not provide any evidence to back up his claims that voting machines are “highly inaccurate.” Most voters live in municipalities where they cast paper ballots that are scanned by voting machines and are subject to multiple checks to ensure accuracy.

“WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,” Trump went on.

This proposed action is in direct conflict with the Constitution.  Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 states The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

This clause of the Constitution intentionally leaves the election process to the states and not the federal government.  For the President to sign an Executive Order to “get rid of MAIL-BALLOTS…Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES” is overstepping his authority.  In plain sense, the President cannot force the individual states to conform to a system of voting prescribed by the federal government or even the President.  In fact, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.

Historically, from colonial times through the 1880s, elections in the US were conducted through a method called viva voce, meaning "with the living voice", where votes were openly stated. Paper ballots, often printed by political parties, were also used during this time, where voters would obtain a ballot and deposit it into a ballot box at the polling place. 
 
The invention of the Acme Voting Machine in the late 1880s marked a shift in election technology. It was designed to enhance vote integrity by providing a mechanism to detect voter fraud and ensure that only one vote was cast per person. The Acme machine, and others like the Automatic Booth invented by Jacob Myers in 1889 and introduced in 1892, were among the first mechanical voting machines used in US elections.  And by the mid 20 century voting machines were used in metropolitan areas of the United States.

Let me also clear, I am not sticking up for the Democratic Party, but let’s once again delve into a bit of US Presidential history and examine the election of 1876.  To say that it was a controversial election is an understatement.  The 1876 Presidential Election presented problems with several states sending conflicting Electoral College votes to Congress.  Oregon, Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina all did so.  Samuel Tilden, a Democrat won the popular vote, however he did not win the electoral vote.  The Republican candidate was Rutherford B. Hayes, who was a very close second to Tilden.  But because of the 20 controversial Electoral votes not being awarded, no winner was determined.

Now one may wonder what this has to do with Trump’s statement, the Democrats will cheat at any level…well let’s see how this election of 1876 plays out.  According to the Constitution, if no candidate receives the necessary electoral votes, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome of the election.  But wait…that is not what happened.

The outcome of the disputed 1876 presidential election was ultimately decided by an Electoral Commission created by Congress
. 
Here's how it unfolded:

• Disputed Votes: The election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden resulted in a stalemate, with disputed electoral votes from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon. Tilden won the popular vote but lacked the necessary electoral votes without those contested states.
• Creation of the Electoral Commission: To resolve this crisis and avoid potential civil unrest, Congress established a 15-member Electoral Commission in January 1877.
• Commission Composition: The commission was comprised of five members from the House of Representatives, five from the Senate, and five Supreme Court justices.
• Decision and Outcome: The Commission ultimately voted along party lines (8 Republicans to 7 Democrats) to award all 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes, securing his victory by a single electoral vote (185 to 184).

Supposedly, an independent was to be on this commission, but died before the commission could decide the outcome, and was replaced by…a Republican.  As you may have read, the vote went along party lines and Rutherford “Old Eight to Seven” Hayes, was declared the winner.  This took place two days before his inauguration, March 5, 1877.

Was there a fix in this election, as Trump has declared so many times after his loss in 2020?  Was there controversy over the commission when the Constitution details the procedure to declare a winner of a Presidential Election should no one receive the necessary Electoral College votes to win?  Was there controversy over the Electoral Votes of four states that sent in conflicting electoral college vote tabulations…(Sound familiar Arizona and other states; the false electors of the 2024 election)?  Was there a political party cheating during this election?  If there was, I don’t think it was Samuel Tilden’s party, or he would have been declared the winner.

​
 
Now, in the Presidential Election of 1948, it was widely expected Thomas Dewey would defeat the incumbent, Harry Truman.  In fact, the Chicago Tribune printed its daily paper with the headline, DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.
​
The 1948 election showcased a mix of mechanical voting systems and traditional paper ballot counting, with results progressively compiled at the local and state levels before the final electoral count and declaration in Congress. The election is also remembered for the significant upset victory achieved by Truman despite early polling predictions to the contrary
 
Counting the votes in the 1948 US presidential election was a lengthy process, as it was primarily done manually
. 

• Election Day: November 2, 1948
• Early Confusion and Concession: Despite initial erroneous reports of Thomas Dewey's victory (e.g., the infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline), Harry Truman had a narrow lead on election night. By mid-morning on November 3, Dewey conceded the election to Truman.
• Vote Counting Duration: While the initial results were reported on Election Night and the following day, the complete and final tallying of votes took a longer period, possibly several days, to be finalized as results came in from across the nation. Therefore, while the outcome was generally known and conceded the day after the election, the manual vote counting process for the 1948 election extended beyond Election Day, taking several days for the final tallies to be confirmed and months until the official count in Congress. 

I will agree there have been difficulties with our voting process.  In Phoenix we have seen long lines on election day; we have seen mail in ballots dropped off on election day become the last votes to be counted and sway an election.  We have seen voting machines accuracy questioned, audited, with no real irregularities noted.
 
Arizona is trying to improve the process for every election.  So are all other states.  History will teach us a manual count of the Presidential vote will consume time.  On the Presidential ballot, there are other candidates and referendums to be considered, and all of those would also be manually counted.  This is time intensive at a best definition.  Is that what our country needs…a repeat of 1876, or 1948?  A manual counting of votes does not insure better accuracy than what is on display with the current system.

The problem is the President and his motivation to get rid of voting machines and mail in ballots.  At one time his lawyers had filed over 60 lawsuits concerning voter fraud in the 2020 election, yet none were adjudicated for a lack of evidence.  It has been said he wants to send more responsibility to the states…i.e., the dismantling of the Department of Education, yet he wants to control the election process, to “help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections”.  The question that needs to be asked is why?  And it needs to be answered.

I have an opinion that would answer that question…so should you.