J.D. Vance, an outspoken political figure, made headlines recently by stating that had he been vice president in 2020, he would have opted to throw the presidential election into the House of Representatives. By leveraging multiple slates of electors from various states, Vance suggested that Congress should have determined the legitimacy of those slates and, consequently, the president. Details on Vance’s position can be found in an NBC News report and further elaborated in Yahoo’s coverage.
Fast forward to 2028. Imagine Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have clinched the 2024 election, and the policies they have enacted over the years have had significant repercussions. Trump’s intent to negotiate with Putin has led to the fall of Ukraine, and the U.S. has withdrawn from NATO based on the belief that America should not finance Europe’s defense. Trump’s administration enforces 10% across-the-board tariffs, exacerbating inflation and renewing corporate tax cuts, further aggravating the deficit.
The U.S. finds itself in a state of division, much of which is attributed to policies implemented during Trump’s presidency, which included the Black Lives Matter protests and the January 6 riot. As a divisive figure, Trump’s leadership style did little to unify the country, and Vance appears as a steadfast supporter within this polarized environment.
As 2028 approaches, the Republican Party nominates Vance, now the sitting vice president, for the presidency, with Marco Rubio as his running mate. Facing strong anti-incumbent sentiment, the Vance/Rubio ticket fails in the general election. However, as the defeated presidential candidate and sitting vice president responsible for overseeing the Electoral College vote count, Vance faces a pivotal moment.
Per his previous stance, Vance challenges the election results and puts the decision into the hands of Congress, where he retains significant influence. Utilizing his belief from 2020, Vance could manipulate the situation together with Congressional allies to ensure his election as president for the term from 2028 to 2032, as explored in Above the Law’s analysis.
The scenario poses an intriguing question for those in legal and corporate spheres: What precedents could such actions set, and what legal frameworks might be necessary to address potential challenges resulting from these dramatic political maneuvers?