By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice
Senate Republicans opened debate Tuesday on a bill they say will secure American elections.
But inside that same fight, a second path is already taking shape—one that doesn’t run through Congress at all.
While lawmakers argue over the SAVE America Act and whether it can survive a Senate filibuster, some election-integrity advocates are pushing something far more aggressive: a proposed emergency order that would allow a president to step in and change how federal elections are run.
RMV obtained a copy of that proposal—and spoke with one of the men now advocating for it.
What’s emerging is not just a policy disagreement. It’s a split in approach.
Congress is trying to answer the question through legislation.
Others are asking whether a president should act now—without waiting for it.
A proposal beyond Congress
At the center of that push is a proposed emergency executive order reviewed by RMV, alongside an interview with Florida attorney Peter Ticktin, who said he has already brought the concept forward to the Trump administration.
The document, labeled “PROPOSED EXECUTIVE ORDER,” does not propose incremental reform. It outlines a framework that would standardize core aspects of election administration nationwide—requiring proof of citizenship, limiting certain forms of mail voting, mandating hand-marked paper ballots and requiring public hand counts at the precinct level.
It also asserts something far more consequential.
“Emergency provisions… shall supersede… NVRA… HAVA… Voting Rights Act…”
That claim alone would set up an immediate constitutional test.
Ticktin does not present the proposal as an expansion of power for its own sake. He presents it as a response to what he believes is an emergency already in motion.
“The president does not have the power to change the way that elections are conducted unless there’s a national emergency,” he said.
To explain that view, he reached for an analogy that has become central to his argument.
“You’re driving down a two lane road… and you get a call from a trusted friend that lets you know that your crazy and hostile former husband has been able to access… your car and can take over the steering anytime,” Ticktin said. “Is that an emergency?”
For him, the answer is obvious.
“It’s a surreptitious invasion.”
The proposal, as he describes it, is meant to stop that threat—not through litigation or legislation, but through immediate executive action.
The core demand: counted in public
Despite the scope of the document, Ticktin repeatedly returned to one specific change as its center.
“The most important aspect of it is that the ballots be hand counted—in public.”
Not behind closed doors. Not by machines. In public.
“Those words in public are really important. It should be on the camera. They should be able to be streamed…”
At the same time, he rejected the idea that the proposal amounts to a full federal takeover.
“Nobody’s asking the president to take over the election process. We are just asking for a couple of rules…”
The document itself goes far beyond a narrow set of changes, raising questions about how far executive authority could extend under an emergency declaration.
From the states to Washington
The argument for that level of intervention is being built on a patchwork of disputes and investigations across the country.
In Arizona, counties went to the Department of Homeland Security to check whether some voters are actually citizens.
In Georgia, federal agents didn’t just review records—they took them.
Federal agents moved in and took ballots, voter rolls and tabulator data. State officials haven’t budged. They still say the 2020 results were accurate.
In Texas, Bexar County has become part of the same pattern coming out of the spring primary election. Allegations tied to voter data and ballot handling have sparked investigations and competing claims about what actually occurred.
Ticktin pointed to it as a present-day example. “We’ve got a smoking gun,” he said.
In Minnesota, lawmakers have acknowledged a structural gap between verifying identity and verifying citizenship during voter registration.
And in Colorado, a formal complaint filed under the Help America Vote Act alleges nearly 500,000 post-certification changes to voter history records across multiple election cycles.
“The official record of who voted… is subject to ongoing retroactive alteration,” the complaint states.
Supporters of stronger federal action say these cases point to something deeper.
Critics say they don’t—that what you’re seeing is complexity, not conspiracy.
From Colorado to a national push
For Ticktin and others, the argument doesn’t begin in Washington. It begins with the people who tried to examine the system from the inside.
“Part of what she was able to image has helped us understand just how the machines are working,” he said, referring to former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters.
Then he took it further—framing her case not as an isolated prosecution, but as a warning.
“There’s three reasons that Tina Peters needs to be in prison,” he said. “One is to simply make her silent… Number two is Jena Griswold… Number three is to be a deterrent to make sure every clerk in the United States knows not to be a hero.”
When he says “Jena Griswold,” he’s pointing squarely at Colorado’s top election office.
Ticktin argues actions taken under her authority—particularly around election system management—are central to the concerns driving this push.
That same pattern, he argued, extends beyond Colorado.
“They filed criminal cases against… people like Tina Peters and… Stefanie Lambert,” Ticktin said, referencing the Michigan attorney who is also facing charges tied to election system access.
He drew a direct comparison between the two.
“She’s as innocent as Tina Peters,” he said.
For Ticktin, those cases aren’t separate—they’re connected.
They are, in his view, part of a broader effort to discourage anyone from digging into how election systems operate.
When elections become national security
The debate has also moved beyond state systems.
U.S. intelligence officials have acknowledged that foreign actors, including China, have accessed and analyzed American voter registration data.
What that means—and how it could be used—is where the concern begins.
Tulsi Gabbard is now part of that shift.
The Director of National Intelligence has stepped directly into election-related investigations, including being on site during the federal seizure of election materials in Georgia.
Her office has said the goal is to identify vulnerabilities in election infrastructure and protect against exploitation.
That shift—from elections as a state-run administrative function to elections as a national security concern—mirrors the logic behind the proposed executive order.
Meanwhile in the Senate
This isn’t just talk—the debate is underway.
Senators spent hours on the floor earlier Tuesday arguing over the SAVE America Act, with Republicans framing it as a necessary safeguard and Democrats pushing back on both its scope and its premise. The chamber has reconvened this afternoon.
It would require proof of citizenship for voter registration and expand the responsibilities of election officials.
Supporters argue it would ensure that only eligible citizens vote.
“We need to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat,” Sen. Jon Husted said.
Opponents counter that noncitizen voting is already rare and that the bill could create significant barriers for eligible voters, with some warning it could create “an administrative nightmare with very little upside.”
Republicans have 53 votes in the Senate, but a filibuster still takes 60.
“It’s about the votes… the math,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said.
That math has left the legislative path uncertain—even as pressure from President Donald Trump continues to build.
For those backing the proposed order, that uncertainty isn’t just a political obstacle—it’s the reason to move outside the legislative process altogether.
That’s the break with Congress.
Why 2026 drives the urgency
For Ticktin, the urgency isn’t hyperbole.
“This is such an emergency.”
Ticktin tied that urgency directly to 2026.
“If they change 18 votes, they’ve got a majority of two thirds in the Senate.”
He sees that as a tipping point—one that could lead to impeachment of both Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
But he doesn’t explain it in terms of votes or control. He explains it another way.
“You’re driving down a two lane road… and you get a call from a trusted friend that your crazy and hostile former husband has remote access to your car and can take over the steering anytime,” he said. “Is that an emergency?”
The question now
This isn’t just a fight happening in state capitols or on the Senate floor anymore. It’s a prolonged conversation that’s endured for years.
It’s showing up everywhere—courtrooms, investigations, intelligence briefings and now in competing ideas about what the federal government should do next.
Congress is debating one path forward.
A separate path—one rooted in emergency authority—is already being pitched.
The question is no longer whether the system will change.
It is whether that change will come through legislation—or through the presidency.
![FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B[1]](https://rockymountainvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B1-300x300.png)