Imagine waking up on Nov. 4 to discover that the midterm elections have produced significant changes in Congress. Some races are close, others decisively called, and election officials are still counting ballots. Candidates are delivering victory and concession speeches. Then the president announces that the election was fraudulent. He alleges illegal voting, manipulated ballots and other irregularities. He demands investigations, urges state officials to halt certifications, and suggests Congress should reject disputed results.

What happens next? As a New York lawyer, I have spent much of my career working within a legal system that recognizes government authority and its limitations. Those limitations matter when political divisions are deep and institutions disagree about their responsibilities. Understanding how the Constitution addresses contested congressional elections is particularly important before a dispute occurs — and disagreements surrounding the 2026 elections are already unfolding. On Oct. 15, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent California from counting mail-in ballots associated with approximately 20,000 individuals identified as potentially ineligible because of citizenship status.

California officials disputed the allegations and challenged the reliability of the government’s information. A federal judge blocked the decision at month’s end; the administration has now appealed to the Supreme Court. The litigation illustrates how federal enforcement authority and state election administration can collide. Such disagreements belong in legal proceedings, where evidence can be examined by a neutral party. Filing a lawsuit does not establish that either side’s allegations are correct. Now imagine similar disagreements unfolding all across the country. The first thing Americans should understand is that the Constitution does not give the president unilateral authority to invalidate congressional election results.

Article I assigns states primary responsibility for administering congressional elections, subject to congressional regulation. State officials conduct elections, count ballots and certify results. Courts resolve appropriate legal challenges. Article I, Section 5 gives each chamber of Congress responsibility for judging the elections, returns and qualifications of its members. That last provision matters enormously. When a congressional election is genuinely disputed, the relevant chamber possesses constitutional authority to determine who is entitled to the seat, subject to constitutional limitations.

The House has established procedures allowing contested elections to be examined through evidence and formal proceedings. This differs from the process governing presidential electoral votes. The vice president does not preside over a comparable congressional election count. Confusing these systems obscures where constitutional authority actually resides. But formal limits on presidential authority don’t eliminate practical concerns. A president possesses an extraordinarily influential public platform. Presidential statements can shape public opinion, intensify pressure on election officials, and affect how supporters interpret alleged irregularities.

Federal agencies may investigate suspected election crimes within their lawful authority. Candidates may pursue litigation while state officials defend their procedures. These developments could unfold simultaneously. But it’s important to remember that influence is not authority. A public official’s opinion about an investigation cannot replace evidence. An agency’s belief that intervention is necessary doesn’t eliminate statutory requirements. Political controversy cannot substitute for established legal procedures. Consider a president challenging results in several closely contested congressional districts. Demonstrations develop outside election offices. Workers receive threats.

Candidates file lawsuits while state officials maintain that their certification procedures are lawful. None of this necessarily produces violence or a constitutional crisis — most election disputes are resolved without either — but nevertheless, prolonged institutional disagreements could create serious challenges. Election offices must remain operational. Courts must hear legitimate challenges. Workers deserve protection against intimidation. Police must distinguish lawful demonstrations from criminal conduct while respecting constitutional rights.

Clear communication becomes essential. Americans should know which allegations are under examination, what evidence exists, and which questions remain unresolved. Congress introduces another complication. Members judging contested elections are themselves elected officials, potentially possessing political interests in the outcome. Yet the Constitution assigns them that responsibility. The House has historically examined contested elections through committee proceedings, evidence and decisions by the chamber. Challenging an election is not inherently improper.

Candidates can request lawful recounts, present evidence of misconduct, and seek judicial review. These safeguards exist because elections can involve mistakes, technical failures and occasionally unlawful conduct. The critical distinction is between alleging misconduct and proving it. Disappointment with an outcome establishes nothing. Neither does a president’s declaration that an election is unreliable. But credible evidence deserves investigation regardless of which political party might benefit. Another constitutional safeguard is the calendar itself.

Under the 20th Amendment, congressional terms begin and end at noon on Jan. 3 in the appropriate years. Unresolved contests might leave individual seats vacant while lawful proceedings continue. That could complicate congressional operations, particularly with a closely divided chamber.

But presidential approval is not a constitutional prerequisite for congressional terms to begin. This illustrates something fundamental about American government. Different institutions possess different responsibilities, and the Constitution establishes mechanisms for resolving disputes among them. Those mechanisms aren’t necessarily fast or politically comfortable. State officials must preserve election records and fulfill their legal duties. Courts must remain available. Federal agencies must respect statutory boundaries. Congress may need to exercise constitutional responsibilities amid intense political pressure.

Voters have responsibilities, too, particularly when evaluating competing claims. We don’t know what today’s elections will ultimately produce. We don’t know whether President Trump will challenge particular results or whether disagreements will lead to prolonged litigation. These are possibilities worth understanding, not outcomes we should presume. What we do know is that presidential authority has constitutional limits. Congressional elections involve responsibilities distributed among states, courts and Congress itself.

If disputes emerge, the appropriate response is to examine evidence, follow established procedures, and allow the responsible institutions to do their jobs. That’s how constitutional government is supposed to work, especially when the political stakes are highest. Billy Cooper, Esq., represents clients in serious personal and catastrophic injury matters, including motor vehicle and Uber-Lyft accidents and complex liability cases.