WASHINGTON — Attorney Peter Ticktin, an ally of President Donald Trump, has proposed ballot seizures for hand recounts before certification. He has also discussed martial law and possible civil war if the election leads to efforts to remove Trump from office.

Peter Ticktin, who represents former Colorado election clerk Tina Peters, attributed the ballot proposal to his client. In an interview with conservative podcaster Joe Oltmann, he described taking custody of ballots after machine tabulation and conducting a hand recount before results become official.

Now, reporting published Oct. 13 by Votebeat shows that pressure for federal intervention continues. Ticktin suggested that federal forces could help seize voting machines where counts are disputed and potentially facilitate hand counts.

The reporting does not establish that Trump has approved a nationwide ballot seizure or ordered military involvement in counting votes. However, it documents an ongoing campaign by people with access to his administration to change election procedures three weeks before Nov. 3.

Proposed ballot seizures before certification

The proposal Ticktin described would intervene between the initial machine count and certification.

According to Mediaite’s Oct. 8 report, he said Peters wanted control of ballots immediately after machines processed them. A subsequent hand count would, in his telling, eliminate any effect the machines had on the totals.

Ticktin initially expressed confidence that such an arrangement could happen. He later sounded less certain when Mediaite asked about implementation.

“I don’t see how it could be orchestrated,” he told the outlet.

He also denied advocating martial law to operate elections. Those qualifications limit what can be claimed about the proposal’s readiness and his stated position. They leave unanswered who would take possession of the ballots, under what authority and through which procedures.

Related coverage: Trump Allies Urge Martial Law to Intervene in Midterms

Civil war comments accompanied the proposal of ballot seizures

During the same podcast conversation, Ticktin discussed a hypothetical election outcome that could lead to attempts to remove Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

“Donald Trump is not going to relinquish control again,” he said, according to The New Republic’s reporting.

He also said that, if civil war occurred, it would be preferable to have “martial law with our side in control of the armaments.”

Those were Ticktin’s remarks about a potential confrontation. They do not establish that Trump made the same statements or adopted that position.

A Democratic victory in congressional elections would not itself remove either Trump or Vance. The Constitution establishes a separate impeachment process.

The House has the power to impeach. The Senate conducts the trial, and conviction requires two-thirds of senators present. Winning a congressional majority does not bypass those requirements, as the Library of Congress’ constitutional analysis explains.

Pressure continues inside Trump’s orbit

Votebeat reported Tuesday that Peters said she had traveled to Washington seven times, visited the White House at least twice and met senior Justice and Commerce Department officials.

Other activists are pursuing related approaches. Cleta Mitchell has urged scrutiny of foreign-made voting-system components through the Commerce Department. Mike Lindell has advocated a national emergency declaration to stop electronic vote counting.

Ticktin, meanwhile, told Votebeat that the situation “might even require, at some point, martial law.” He framed alleged threats involving Chinese-made components as a national security issue.

The White House and Commerce Department did not respond to Votebeat’s requests for comment. The outlet also reported growing frustration among activists who feared the administration would not implement their proposals.

Earlier, the White House declined to confirm Peters’ reported October meeting with Trump. Asked by Mediaite whether Trump would uphold the Constitution if impeached, a spokeswoman said the administration would do so.

Peters’ written plan includes important limits

A proposal on Peters’ own website provides another account of what she wants federal officials to do.

The document calls for a federal election-security risk declaration, a Commerce Department review and accelerated support for state and local changes. It recommends complete hand counts of federal contests where feasible, with expanded statistical audits where full counts are impractical.

However, the published plan expressly acknowledges that states and localities administer elections. It says the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency cannot unilaterally rewrite state election law.

The website also describes the proposal as “not a claim that a past U.S. election result was electronically altered.”

Those qualifications belong alongside Ticktin’s more confrontational public remarks. The written proposal advocates federal assistance and security measures within existing legal limits. His interview raised the separate question of taking control of ballots.

Neither the website nor the proposal constitutes a government order. The document also cautions against attributing its specific full-hand-count approach to researchers whose broader election-security work it cites.

Why the period before certification matters

Election results move through several checks before becoming official. The first totals announced on election night are preliminary, even when a reporting website shows every precinct has submitted results.

According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, election officials use the canvass to reconcile records and account for valid ballots. That work includes ballots cast early, by mail, provisionally and by military and overseas voters.

Audits can check whether equipment counted votes correctly. Recounts provide an additional count under procedures established by state law. Depending on the jurisdiction, a close margin, candidate request or court order can trigger a recount.

Certification then records the responsible officials’ determination that the results accurately account for the votes.

Taking ballots away from those officials would therefore raise questions about custody, access, deadlines and responsibility for the final count. Any proposed transfer would need a lawful basis and procedures protecting the records.

Hand counting already has a place in election administration. The central questions surrounding Ticktin’s proposal concern who would order it, who would control the ballots and whether the process would follow governing law.

The president cannot simply replace election rules

The Constitution’s Elections Clause assigns responsibility for congressional election procedures to the states, subject to Congress’ authority to make or alter those rules.

That authority extends to counting votes, supervising elections and establishing recount procedures. The clause does not give the president an independent power to replace those systems with rules of his choosing.

Federal agencies can perform duties authorized by law. But an assertion that election equipment presents a security risk does not, by itself, establish authority to take over the count.

Any administration effort to compel nationwide changes would therefore require a specific legal foundation. That includes identifying which agency could act, what the relevant law permits and how the action would comply with constitutional limits.

Military involvement would face additional restrictions.

18 U.S.C. § 593 prohibits members of the armed forces from imposing election regulations that differ from those prescribed by law. It also prohibits interference with election officials carrying out their duties and efforts to prevent qualified voters from exercising their rights.

Those restrictions directly concern the prospect of troops imposing new procedures on civilian election administrators.

Emergency claims face restrictions on troops at polls

A separate statute, 18 U.S.C. § 592, restricts federal officials from bringing or keeping troops or armed personnel at places where elections are held. Its stated exception concerns forces necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.

An analysis updated Oct. 13 by Brennan Center attorney Joseph Nunn argues that invoking the Insurrection Act would not override that prohibition.

Nunn addresses a 1968 Justice Department memo that took a different view. He argues the memo misread the law and its legislative history, which show Congress intended to constrain military interference in elections.

The existence of that older memo illustrates a potential legal dispute over emergency powers. It does not establish that a president can lawfully direct troops to administer elections or replace civilian election officials.

Peters’ own election breach remains part of the record

Peters previously administered elections as Mesa County’s clerk and recorder.

A jury convicted her in August 2024 of four felonies and three misdemeanors arising from a breach of the county’s voting equipment. The convictions included attempting to influence a public servant and conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation.

According to the Colorado secretary of state’s account, the breach forced the county to replace equipment at a cost approaching $1 million.

She received a nine-year sentence in October 2024. Colorado’s Court of Appeals upheld her convictions in April 2026 while ordering resentencing. Gov. Jared Polis subsequently commuted her sentence in May.

Polis ordered her release on parole for June 1, Colorado Public Radio reported.

After reports of the ballot proposal emerged, Polis criticized the possibility of election interference. In a statement published by Colorado Public Radio on Oct. 8, he described discussion of ballot seizures or civil war as “dangerous and unbefitting the office of the President of the United States.”

He also pledged to protect voting rights in Colorado and urged Trump’s administration to lower the temperature of its rhetoric.

For now, the public record establishes that activists are seeking intervention, that Ticktin has discussed taking control of election materials, and that significant legal restrictions stand in the way. It does not establish presidential approval of a nationwide seizure.

With Nov. 3 approaching, the next consequential development would be a formal government action: an order, directive or legal filing identifying what officials intend to do and the authority they claim.