In a critical Saturday WarRoom discussion on election security, Ben Harnwell and Bruce Castor Jr. explored the legal framework surrounding election certification and the responsibilities of public officials. Castor, a former attorney known for his expertise in constitutional law, emphasized the solutions available to ensure that elections are conducted properly, cautioning that failure to follow established mandates could lead to severe consequences.

At the heart of their discussion was Castor’s focus on the legal tools that can be used to compel state and federal officials to ensure election integrity. Castor explained that Congress has set minimum standards that elections must meet to be certified, and it is the responsibility of both federal and state officials to enforce these standards. However, when officials fail to fulfill their duties, legal action can be taken to correct these deficiencies.

One key mechanism Castor highlighted is the use of mandamus actions, which are court orders compelling public officials to perform their legally required duties. Unlike injunctions, which require officials to perform specific actions, mandamus simply orders them to do their jobs as prescribed by law. “The concept of mandamus is you target a specific duty that a government official is required to perform,” Castor explained. He further clarified that the goal is not to instruct officials on how to do their jobs but to ensure they act within the framework set by Congress: “We’re just asking them to do it.”

Castor emphasized that the 2022 federal elections in the states where lawsuits were filed did not meet the threshold required for certification under Congressional mandates. The failure of officials to correct these issues poses a significant risk for future elections. Castor warned that if the same problems persist in the 2024 elections, public trust in the electoral system could be further erased. "If federal and state officials responsible for enforcing these mandates don’t act, future elections could suffer the same problems,” he said.

Castor also detailed the consequences for public officials who fail to comply with court orders. If federal judges rule in favor of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, they could issue orders requiring officials to ensure that future elections meet federal standards. “If officials refuse to comply, there would be fines associated with that,” Castor said, warning that repeated failure could even result in jail terms for public officials. While such extreme measures are rare, they are not unprecedented. Castor referenced historical examples from the era of desegregation when federal courts had to step in to enforce Congressional mandates on reluctant state officials.

In cases of extreme non-compliance, federal judges have the power to take over certain aspects of the election process. Castor outlined how courts could appoint officials to monitor state compliance and report back on the progress. This process could involve court-appointed monitors overseeing the implementation of election protocols, ensuring that provisional ballots are properly handled, and verifying the accuracy of the vote count. "What I envision happening is the judge will order a procedure whereby individual states are monitored by court-appointed officials,” Castor said, noting that this level of oversight is necessary when state officials fail to fulfill their duties.

Castor’s remarks serve as a stark warning about the importance of election security and the legal repercussions of ignoring established standards. His message is clear: federal and state officials must take their responsibilities seriously, or they could face significant legal consequences. As Castor put it, "The only mechanism to make states do what Congress is requiring is to get federal judges to step in and order that the Congressional mandates be followed.”

For more context, watch the full WarRoom segment with Castor explaining in more detail:

Bruce Castor Jr. On How States Can Create Trustworthy Electoral Results Through Election Integrity