I've heard 20 versions of this sort of thing so far about everything from tariffs to DC occupation to another dozen things that are currently happening in the real world, so I just ignore it at this point.

Exactly. At some point, the pundits and legal analysts will have to acknowledge that the mechanisms in place to halt these actions, have been rendered nonexistent by compliant SCOTUS and Congress.

One way it might have effect is if state or local MAGA election officials treat it as binding, and so then tk stop it litigants have to also win the argument that under state law, state and local officials can’t ban mail-in votes.

That would, however, be equally true of a Truth Social post that said the same thing. I think the point that the Pres can’t actually make anyone do it is right.

Fair. But then the question becomes whether making this an “executive order” (in addition to posting it on “Truth” Social) is more likely to prod a MAGA election official to treat it as law.

I think reporting on it should attempt to convey that whatever effect that is, is limited in scope and has no enforcement mechanism which would apply to non MAGA states or for that matter even MAGA states

like, there is no place you can go to enforce this mandate, and the only institutional mechanism I can think of is Republican primaries

I see it very differently, I’m afraid. Maybe I’ll try to write something up.

Maybe give me a hint? What mechanism?

in 2020 Michigan, two Republicans almost killed the whole state singlehandedly www.npr.org/sections/liv... and that was *without* an EO giving courts an excuse to go along with it

And if we’re talking about things like sending in troops, I mean, sure, but also… that’s pretty far afield from the initial framing Jamelle was reacting to

Sorry, wasn't being coy, just hard to give a short answer. But I'll try. I think administration has lots of institutional mechanisms. One big one is it can revive the efforts to strike millions of voters from voter rolls, using litigation (maybe Scotus will bite), witholding fed funds ...

... and spurring red states to do what they're happy to do. Those voter roll purges are a treasured part of their voter-suppression playbook, and now they have access to way more data, and better have a monopoly on data, to bullshit something up. And now they have folks like Honey on inside ...

Ok I think we’re having somewhat different convos prompted by somewhat different readings of what Jamelle is saying. State X does not want to end mail in voting. There is no lever that can just be pulled to make that happen with any degree of speed or confidence. That’s how I read it.

I think you’d aim at USPS. I don’t think it would work but that’s what I think he’d aim to try.

at this point I think we’re really taking Jamelle’s claim too far. It’s not that there’s literally nothing he can do that would have any effect, it’s just that the EO just doesn’t have any particular enforcement mechanism that can make states do stuff.

That’s fair. FWIW, I think he is basically correct. there are a lot of steps between here and there (and for this, really not obvious what they are), and his adversaries do exist and are not traffic cones or mindless automatons who follow his posts as royal decrees.

I'm sort of in the middle on this, in that I do think that even if he didn't outright win in ordering the Postal Service to stop delivery on ballots, threatening to do it would effectively kill mail voting as a trustworthy thing. Of course, where that leaves Oregon and Washington isn't clear.

Agreed, and in particular I think folks underrate how big a hurdle anti-commandeering is in terms of just straight-up ordering states to do anything. That's not a line he's even tried to cross, really, and it's unlikely he will here because it's a much bigger leap with much harder barriers.

"Do what I want or I'll yank funding" is a thing he's been doing (and isn't much of a threat for election administration), and he's often been losing even on that b/c precedents are so strong. But none of the EOs have attempted to say to state agencies ok you work for me now, here are your orders.

And related, media coverage has not been good at conveying that distinction, there has been a ton of "Trump orders such-and-such" when the actual EO is just a bunch of empty bluster even on its own terms.

Yes. I was only talking practically, not legally. You’re right about how this should be reported