An opinion column published by Alternet argues that the most consequential date on the post-election calendar may not be Election Day in November, but Jan. 3, 2027 — the day the 120th Congress is scheduled to convene.

The piece, published under the headline “January 3rd is the real date experts are petrified about,” opens with a quotation attributed to Joseph Stalin: “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” Its central premise is that if Democrats retake Congress in November’s midterm elections — an outcome nearly all major polls suggest, according to the author — the Trump administration and its allies are unlikely to accept the result quietly.

Among the responses the column anticipates: a flurry of lawsuits alleging election fraud, demands for recounts across the country, incessant propaganda about Chinese and Iranian cyber-interference, threats to prosecute state election officials, and possible attempts to seize voting machines.

Should those maneuvers fail, the author writes, the stage would be set for a “High Noon”-style showdown on Jan. 3, 2027. To preserve Republican majorities in the House and Senate, the president could be expected to wage what the column describes as a final battle of obstruction and orchestrated chaos, possibly culminating in a declaration of a national emergency. The motive, the author argues, would be to avoid the hearings and investigations that a Democratic Congress would likely initiate.

Under the 20th Amendment, a new Congress convenes at two-year intervals at noon on Jan. 3. The event is intended to be ceremonial, similar to the joint session of Congress that counts Electoral College ballots on Jan. 6 every four years. “But as we saw in 2021, ceremony can quickly give way to sabotage,” the author writes.

Each chamber sets its own rules for the swearing-in of new and reelected members, and each, the column notes, would present different opportunities to contest the seating of lawmakers. That authority traces to Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which makes each house the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members — the provision that places seating disputes before Congress itself in the first instance.

Writing last month in The New Republic, former U.S. Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig outlined a scenario in which House Speaker Mike Johnson could use the office of the clerk of the House to alter the outcome of the midterms and precipitate a constitutional crisis in a last-ditch effort to secure Republican control.

The clerk is a nonpartisan administrator whose principal task on Jan. 3 is to prepare the “roll” of members-elect, listing everyone who has been elected and certified by their respective states to serve. After compiling the roll, the clerk calls the members-elect to order. The members then elect a new speaker, who in turn swears in the members-elect, allowing the first session of the new House to begin and the chamber to conduct the nation’s business.

Although the clerk’s duties are strictly ministerial, Luttig posits that sometime before noon on Jan. 3, Johnson would replace the current clerk, Kevin McCumber, with a loyalist who would refuse to list a decisive number of Democrats on the roll, preventing them from being seated. Under the House’s internal rules, the speaker has the unilateral power to remove the incumbent clerk, and under federal law, the power to replace the clerk with whomever he wishes until the whole House elects a successor.

“McCumber,” Luttig explains, “is a Republican appointed by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He is widely respected for his integrity and faithful adherence to the Constitution and is reputed to be unwilling to carry out orders he considers to be unconstitutional.” The column notes that his replacement could be anyone — it names Alina Habba, Mike Lindell and Laura Loomer as examples. “There are no age, citizenship or even sanity requirements,” the author writes.

Democrats targeted by a rogue clerk would no doubt seek immediate relief from the courts, and Luttig believes they would ultimately prevail, relying on a 1969 Supreme Court precedent, Powell v. McCormack, which ordered the seating of New York Rep. Adam Clayton Powell after he had been excluded from the 90th Congress by a majority vote of House members despite being duly reelected. That ruling held that Congress may exclude a member-elect only for failing to meet the qualifications the Constitution itself sets — age, citizenship and residence.

But any such litigation would take time, especially if appeals were taken all the way to the Supreme Court and its six Republican-appointed justices. Luttig contends that even the Roberts Court would ultimately block a rogue clerk’s action, but he acknowledges that the justices could conceivably sidestep legal challenges on technical grounds — holding that the question of the clerk’s authority presents a “political question” beyond the court’s jurisdiction, or that any intervention would violate the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. In the meantime, the column warns, the country would be left with a wholly dysfunctional House unable to discharge even its most basic appropriations and budgetary functions.

As might be expected, Luttig has received considerable pushback for the article. Critics on the right have accused him of fearmongering, and some prominent liberal commentators, such as election law expert Rick Hasen, have objected that his scenario is “unlikely” to occur.

The column argues, however, that Luttig’s analysis may not go far enough. It contains no discussion, for example, of what might happen on Jan. 3 in the Senate. Even if Democrats win a majority, Vice President JD Vance would remain the body’s president, and it would be his responsibility to swear in each newly elected or reelected member. What if Vance, “following instructions from his boss,” refused to swear a critical number of Democrats? “Legal and political bedlam may be an understatement,” the author writes. Unseated Democratic senators, acting in concert with their House counterparts, would turn to litigation, but that, too, could take weeks if not months to resolve — during which the seated Republicans would hold the majority.

The other wild card absent from Luttig’s analysis, according to the column, is how Trump might take advantage of the bedlam. Trump’s allies on the far right have long urged him to take control of the midterms by invoking his considerable powers under the National Emergencies Act, a post-Watergate reform enacted in 1976 to rein in presidential authority that, in practice, has worked in the opposite direction. The act gives the president broad discretion to issue an emergency declaration, so long as he specifies at least one existing statutory power that will be used to initiate and combat the emergency. Presidents of both parties have used the act with little congressional oversight.

Trump has invoked the act at least 21 times, the column notes, to advance projects including construction of his southern border wall to stem immigration, promotion of fossil fuel production, and his tariffs on foreign goods and services. And while the Supreme Court invalidated much of his tariff regime in February 2026, his other declarations — along with dozens declared by past presidents — remain in force.

The author emphasizes that there is no legal authority for the president to take control of federal elections, or to conspire with House and Senate Republicans to exclude elected Democrats from taking office. “But if you think that will stop Trump from trying, you have been asleep for the last 10 years,” the column statesn
The piece concludes that the best — and perhaps only — way to prevent the scenario is turnout so massive that such election plots are “killed in the crib.” “We have the power to prevent Jan. 3 from becoming the new Jan. 6,” the author writes. “Let’s use it while we still can.”