As the November elections draw closer, statements and actions of the White House administration, along with pending legislation it has been pushing, offer clues as to the steps Trump supporters are contemplating as they seek to prevent the unfavorable results polls are predicting. A few mid-term losses could cost them their control of both houses of Congress.

Pres. Trump made a point, in his State of the Union address, to urge Congress to pass H.R. 7296, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, also called the SAVE Act. That bill would requires that states take affirmative steps to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote, including requiring documentary proof of citizenship; and establishing a program to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens. Individuals seeking to vote in federal elections would be required to present an eligible photo identification document. The bill provides for criminal penalties for violations.

Most Americans do not have easy access to citizenship documents or photo IDs. Tens of millions of Americans lack ready access to election officials, during office hours. This bill, if enacted, would create a new poll tax that would disenfranchise those voters.

Another such legislative effort to restrict voting appears in H.R. 7300, the so-called “Make Elections Great Again Act.” Like the “SAVE” proposal, this bill would require photographic identification of would-be voters; and would require states to maintain voter registration forms. It repeals various existing voting support statutes, and substitutes the stricter barriers to participation.

These bills have no realistic chance of passing the Senate if Democrats filibuster them. Sen. John Cronyn, the Senate majority leader, opposes amending the filibuster rules to enable these bills to pass. That is because he knows that, if the Senate would do so, Democrats would be able to repeal these bills and to pass the much more progressive John Lewis Voting Rights without having to worry about a Republican filibuster.

Sen. Cornyn has threatened to force Democratic Senators to do a “talking filibuster,” that is, to take the floor of the Senate and to talk the bills to death. Senate Democrats are willing to take him up on that challenge, since virtually all of them oppose these bill.

In addition, the White House has taken actions that appear aimed at skewing or discrediting the results of the November elections should the election result in loss of that majority. First, the administration recently, for no readily apparent reason, successfully sought a judicial warrant requiring civilian election officials in Fulton County, Georgia, to turn over to the F.B.I. all ballots and tabulation materials relating to the 2020 presidential election. Despite repeated audits of these election returns showing that the White House occupant lost that election, he continues to repeat his lies claiming that he won.

Possession of the actual ballots used for that election will at this point not be likely to impact that result now five years in the past. But carrying out this seizure action will serve well as a dry run for taking similar actions in select districts this fall, should his favored candidates there lose. It should be a simple matter in that case, should the courts permit it, to seize the actual ballots used and, having exclusive access to them, take what steps are necessary to substitute a favorable, untrue result in favor of the chosen candidate.

This potential for preparing a strategy for replacing actual ballots with fabricated alternative papers favoring MAGA candidates offers a plausible rationale for the seizure of the 2020 ballots, which otherwise appears to have no realistic purpose.

In addition to this bizarre ballot seizure (which was supervised, in person, both by the director of national intelligence, whose functions are limited by law to international issues; and by the president himself), recent developments in the anti-immigrant campaign present additional aspects of the administration’s ongoing policy initiatives that could be used towards the same election-derailment end. As has been amply demonstrated in Minneapolis (as well as Los Angeles, Chicago and other locales) the administration now has at its beck and call a paramilitary organization, complete with uniforms, firearms, teargas, masks and badges, to implement its goals by force. These federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“I.C.E.”) agents, have shown a nearly complete lack of compassion, courtesy, professionalism or respect for the rights of other Americans or even any other humans, to say nothing of the rule of law.

These agents’ inclination towards unjustifiable violence has cost the lives of at least two U.S. citizens protesting in Minneapolis. Perhaps more troubling, their actions are chillingly reminiscent of another group, the SA or Sturmabteilung, which was active in assisting in the Nazi takeover of the German government in the 1930s. While arguably more extreme than the I.C.E. agents’ conduct, the SA harassed and attacked demonstrators opposing the Nazis, and killed a number of them.

These mask-wearing, law-breaking ICE agents, who are reportedly being assigned as security for American athletes at the winter Olympic games in Italy, could just as well be deployed broadly around the nation, to “guard” polling places in the fall elections. At the very least, their presence could be counted on to dissuade many voters who are aware of ICE’s reputation for violence even against citizens, sometimes leading to death; or who are leery of being seized and deported. Indeed, no less a figure than former adviser to the chief executive, and prominent MAGA activist Steve Bannon, as well as presidential spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, have been quoted saying that this use of the I.C.E. armed force is already under serious consideration. And the chief executive has stated publicly that “Republicans” should take over managing the election process come November.

The documented absence of serious voting irregularities in the U.S. means that the true motivation for these initiatives must lie elsewhere, and given the Republican fear of losses in November, restricting turnout of Democratic voters seems like a realistic possibility.

Under the U.S. Constitution, elections are to be managed by the states, meaning that these enactments could be subject to legal challenge if adopted. Moreover, despite favorable votes in the House, to get either or both of these bills passed in the Senate, Republicans would have to amend the filibuster rules, which, given Democratic opposition, it appears they will not attempt to do. Since 46 of the 47 Senate Democrats oppose both bills, the Democrats may be able to talk both bills to death; but the threat remains.

The fall elections are far away, and Republicans still have time to win back voters the traditional way, with positive responses to the most crucial issues, such as affordability and correcting the abuses of the immigration crackdown, However, their focus appears rather to be on changing the outcome by making burdening the process and reducing the numbers of voters. With the tools noted, including the ability to seize critical documentation at the heart of the election, and the powerful I.C.E. armed force, at its disposal, it is easy to see how the administration could anticipate overcoming even the serious opposition of many American voters to its policies and practices.

As encouraged as they may be by recent negative survey results for the White House occupant and his agenda, opponents of these attempts at distorting the upcoming elections must remain vigilant about protecting the true safeguards built into the process as it exists, including the freedom and independence of state and local election authorities. This vigilance must include continuing monitoring of efforts to tinker with the process, and to make changes likely to intimidate or discourage voters, including imposing federal requirements on, and restricting the autonomy of, local authorities. Such changes must be resisted vigorously by public statements and demonstrations, and by lawsuits if need be. While victory in a few districts in November could mean such opponents regain the majority, it requires only a similarly small number of victories to keep the present “Republican” majority in power.

Stratagems like those noted above could be all that is needed to prevent victory by the administration’s opponents. Failure to act to oppose and block those stratagems by any and all means may lead to the loss, permanently, of the key core mechanism of democratic government for this beloved country.

Written by Paul Merry, Stand Up For Workers Board Member