Martial Law: Presidential Elections Possible Or Not?

The concept of martial law refers to the military taking the place of civilian authorities and exercising jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. While the US Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the authority to declare martial law, several presidents throughout history have done so. The Supreme Court has held that states can declare martial law, but it has never specifically held that the president can. The question of whether a presidential election can be held during martial law is complex and depends on various factors, including the specific circumstances and the extent to which democratic processes are disrupted.

The legality of declaring martial law

In the United States, the legality of declaring martial law is a contentious issue with a long history. The US Constitution does not explicitly grant the President the authority to declare martial law unilaterally. The Constitution vests power in the legislative branch, specifically Congress, when it comes to the domestic use of the military. This means that any declaration of martial law by the President would likely require authorization from Congress. However, the Supreme Court has never provided a clear and conclusive ruling on this matter, and the legal questions surrounding it remain unanswered.

Historically, martial law has been imposed in the United States during limited and local circumstances. Examples include the Battle of New Orleans, the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, and various riots and civil unrest incidents. The imposition of martial law in these cases was often justified by the common law doctrine of necessity, which suggests that extreme measures are necessary to maintain order and safety during times of crisis.

State officials, such as governors, have the power to impose martial law within their respective states, but their actions must abide by the US Constitution and are subject to review in federal court. Additionally, the President has the authority to deploy troops to assist civilian law enforcement, but this does not equate to a declaration of martial law.

While the US Constitution's drafters acknowledged the possibility of martial law as an emergency power, they did not explicitly provide for its implementation. This ambiguity has led to ongoing debates and interpretations of the legal authority to declare martial law in the United States.

The history of martial law in the US

In the United States, the power to impose martial law rests with the US President and Congress, as well as state officials and governors. However, the President's authority to unilaterally declare martial law is disputed, and it is generally believed that Congress must authorize such a declaration. Throughout US history, martial law has been imposed at least 68 times, mostly in limited, local areas.

One of the earliest instances of martial law in the US occurred during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, when President George Washington deployed troops to suppress the uprising. In 1842, the Rhode Island General Assembly declared martial law, the last time a state legislature did so. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln imposed Congressionally authorized martial law on Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, suspending habeas corpus and civil rights. The Supreme Court later ruled that this imposition was unconstitutional in areas where local courts were still functioning.

In the 20th century, the use of martial law continued, often in response to labour disputes and strikes. For example, in 1903, Colorado Governor James Peabody declared martial law to break a peaceful strike by the Western Federation of Miners. The Colorado National Guard conducted mass arrests and ignored state court orders, highlighting the abuse of power that can occur under martial law. In 1919, local leaders declared martial law during the Omaha race riot, and it was also imposed during the Red Summer of 1919, when white supremacists attacked Black communities across the nation.

The imposition of martial law during the Colorado Coalfield War in 1914 culminated in the Ludlow Massacre, where the National Guard clashed with strikers, resulting in violence and deaths. In the 1930s, Oklahoma Governor William Murray declared martial law numerous times, and the decade saw an increase in the flagrant abuse of this power by governors. During World War II, martial law was imposed in Hawaii after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Martial law and the suspension of civil rights

Martial law is an emergency power that allows the military to supersede civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. This means that laws are enforced by soldiers, and policy decisions are made by military officers. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals, and the military officer in command can rule by decree and detain anyone for any reason.

In the United States, martial law has been used in limited circumstances, such as during times of war, invasion, civil disorder, or natural disasters. For example, martial law was declared in Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri during the Civil War, and in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor. In these cases, the right to a hearing and trial on lawful imprisonment, or habeas corpus, was often suspended, along with other constitutional rights such as the right to gather in groups, own guns, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The power to declare martial law in the United States is not explicitly granted to any one branch of government. While the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, the Supreme Court has ruled that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally declare martial law. Instead, Congress might be able to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law, but this has not been conclusively decided. State officials do have the power to declare martial law, but their actions must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

The Supreme Court has also held that the mere mention of "martial law" in a statute is insufficient to authorize its implementation. This is because martial law has never been precisely or conclusively defined, and its use is governed by sparse and confusing legal precedent. As a result, the exact scope of martial law and the suspension of civil rights remains uncertain.

The role of the military during martial law

Martial law refers to the military taking the place of civilian authorities. It is usually declared in an emergency or during a conflict, when there is an absence of any other civil government. Martial law can be accompanied by curfews, the suspension of civil rights, and the application of military law or military justice to civilians.

During martial law, the military has the power to arrest people who defy its rules or express opposition to martial law, including legislators, judges, and other officials. The military can also restrict press freedom, censor information, and ban public demonstrations.

In the United States, the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Militia of the several States. However, under current US law, the President cannot declare martial law. This power lies with Congress or a local military commander under specific situations. State officials can also declare martial law, but their actions must abide by the US Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

The impact of martial law on election legitimacy

The imposition of martial law typically involves the military supplanting civilian authorities, with laws being enforced by soldiers and policy decisions being made by military officers. While martial law can be necessary in emergencies, it poses a challenge to democratic processes, including elections. The suspension of civil rights, media freedom, and political competition can hinder free and fair elections.

In the United States, the Constitution does not define martial law or specify who can declare it, and there is no legal basis for the federal government to impose it. While several presidents and state governors have imposed or approved declarations of martial law, the Supreme Court has never explicitly held that the president can declare it.

Historically, countries have rarely held elections during wartime, often postponing them until conditions allow for a free, fair, and secure electoral process. Elections during wartime have been historically rare and complex, with most countries opting to postpone elections until conditions allow for a more democratic process. Some countries, like the United Kingdom, France, and Israel, have chosen to postpone elections during wartime to prioritize security and stability.

However, there are also examples of countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia conducting elections amid active conflicts, although these elections faced issues with legitimacy due to violence, voter intimidation, and electoral fraud. For instance, Afghanistan held elections during active insurgencies, but they were marked by low turnout and legitimacy concerns. Iraq's 2005 elections were also conducted amid ongoing conflict, with insurgent groups threatening voters and attacking polling stations, leading to a contested outcome.

In the case of Ukraine’s 2024 presidential election, the impact of martial law on the democratic process is particularly ambiguous. Ukraine is an aspiring liberal democracy, and its commitment to upholding democratic values is essential in its attempts to join international institutions such as the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). However, after the escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2022, the Ukrainian government instituted martial law, which continues to present a dilemma for the Ukrainian people.

Frequently asked questions