No they can’t, states cannot interfere with federal law enforcement in any way. They can refuse to help (and even that is controversial), but they cannot impede. Remember, it’s not like Trump and ICE are going to be announcing that they intend to interfere with elections, they’ll say it’s legitimate law enforcement against a credible threat, and state interference with Federal law enforcement against “credible threats” is completely illegal.

Years down the road, maybe some judge will rule ICE’s actions violated voters’ Constitutional rights, but who cares? The standard punishment for that is a stern “don’t do it again”. If someone is convicted because of a rights violation, their conviction might be overturned, but that’s not what would happen here: it would just be intimidation and harassment to move vote totals and no conviction to be reversed.

My personal litmus test for whether we've entered any kind of "there's still a little hope for the Republic" territory is whether anyone with real power is talking about eliminating the permanent position of Supreme Court Justice and replacing that with a by-lot panel system from the lower courts.

This isn't a crazy or impossible proposition, it can be done with just a law. We already form some courts in a similar way, so it's also not unprecedented. It even avoids the naked partisanship of a simple court-packing.

As far as I can tell, nobody who matters is talking about it yet. So. Hope is... remote.

Liberia had a nearly identical constitution for much of its existence. You know, the place from where General Butt Naked warlord engaged in cannabilism of the populace and each president for awhile was replaced with the last via having their ear cut off or tortured and then hanged while the next guys people drink a budweiser in front of the camera for the world to see.

It's a road map to where we end up with a similar document but a different culture.

Complex systems have more unintended behaviors and failure modes, and interventions create new problems you didn’t anticipate. This is literally the Law of unintended consequences, and the more detailed you make the law, the harder it is to update to correct, current or actual circumstances.

I disagree completely. There are a lot of tweaks which need to be made to the various mechanisms of American government, but ultimately there's no system you can design which can fix the problem of "approximately half the country is in a personality cult to one guy who demands absolute power, and his supporters in government refuse to enforce the law against him". Or at least no system which is remotely recognizable as democratic. How could that possibly work?

It's user error, and trying to fix it without changing the minds and wants of those users just makes them angrier that "the Elites are undermining the will of the People" or whatever.

If you live in the most pro-2A state, which is Texas, then you need not worry about this because not only will Texas vote Republican in a wildly lopsided fashion as usual, and not only will the state of Texas gleefully cooperate with Trump election interference, it is also the one place where ICE goons won't stalk the streets carrying arms and wearing skull masks because by statute and by jurisprudence Texas has already firmly established that it's reasonable to shoot such a person dead, due to doubt about their identity as genuine peace officers.

And, to be perfectly clear, it is reasonable to shoot that person on sight. But so far only Texas has codified it.

Only within X feet of a polling place typically. Check your local laws for compliance. Print them out, have them on your person. I am advocating for protecting yourself against unlawful federal force, including lethal force, while remaining within the letter of the law while exercising your right to vote. Definitely don't break the law as it relates to crossing a threshold (distance, whatever) with a firearm at a polling location, if that is the law in your jurisdiction. Certainly a better option than being dead and having ProPublica have to release the names of those who caused harm, imho. Alternatively, you should be talking to your governor already about local police and national guard being stationed to protect voters from federal agent intimidation, if needed. Pick your risk appetite.

You are responsible for protecting you, no one else is or will. Know the law, operate within it to the best of your ability and from a position of good faith. Failing all of that, a jury will work it out.

https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/state-gun-bans-polling-plac...

Lawyer. Passport. Locksmith. Gun. (A Talk About Risk and Preparedness) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33509164 - November 2022