Imagine Democrats win a razor-thin House majority in November. Voters deliver control of Congress, election officials certify the results, and Hakeem Jeffries appears poised to become speaker.

Then, before the new members are even sworn in, Republicans challenge two Democratic victories.

Those Democrats are ordered to “step aside.” The apparent majority instantly disappears. Republicans call another vote for speaker—and Mike Johnson returns to power despite his party winning fewer seats.

This has not happened. It is a hypothetical scenario.

But House Democrats and election experts are reportedly preparing for versions of that constitutional nightmare, fearing that obscure procedures could be exploited to obstruct the transfer of power on Jan. 3, 2027.

The vulnerability emerges during the strange opening moments of a new Congress.

Follow @allchronology

At noon, the outgoing House dissolves. Before newly elected lawmakers take the oath, the chamber must elect a speaker. The House clerk—whose authority carries between congressional terms—calls the names of members-elect from a roll created using election certificates submitted by the states.

That normally ceremonial process could become decisive if control rests on one or two seats.

Under a little-known “step aside” procedure last used in 1985, a lawmaker could object to seating members whose elections are disputed. If two Democrats were temporarily excluded from an otherwise 218–217 Democratic majority, Republicans could suddenly possess more eligible votes.

Michigan State University professor Brian Kalt warned about a nearly identical scenario in a 2021 Marquette Law Review article.

“It would be outrageous for a party to try to seize control of the House this way,” Kalt wrote. “Unfortunately, if conditions were just so, it is not hard to imagine either party launching such an attempt.”

What followed could be parliamentary chaos.

Both parties might challenge opposing members, file competing motions and dispute who is allowed to vote on the disputes themselves. Kalt described the possibility of “votes, meta-votes” and even “meta-meta-votes” before anyone formally takes office.

The House might then be controlled not by the party that won the election, but by whichever side remained more disciplined and skillful at procedural warfare.

An even more alarming scenario focuses on House Clerk Kevin McCumber.

McCumber was appointed by Johnson in 2025 but is generally regarded as nonpartisan. He has worked under both Republican and Democratic leadership and previously served as deputy clerk under Nancy Pelosi.

Democrats reportedly fear Johnson could fire McCumber if election returns show them winning the majority, replacing him with a Trump loyalist who might exclude Democratic candidates targeted by allegations of fraud.

“The role of the clerk and making the roll of new members—that’s the most vulnerable part,” Kalt said.

State officials certify election results and transmit them to the clerk’s office. The office reviews the paperwork and ordinarily allows states to correct technical deficiencies.

A partisan clerk could theoretically manipulate that review, rejecting or delaying certificates from strategically selected races and manufacturing an artificial majority.

There is no public evidence that Johnson has decided to attempt such a maneuver. Johnson and Republican leaders did not respond to questions about whether firing the clerk had been discussed or whether they would honor a Democratic victory.

Democrats say they cannot afford to dismiss the possibility.

“We have been preparing for what is certain to be Donald Trump’s next assault on democracy,” Rep. Joe Morelle said. “We are ready, legally and legislatively, to ensure the 120th Congress will be seated without incident.”

Rep. Terri Sewell said Democrats were treating Trump’s threats to interfere with elections “extremely seriously,” while Jeffries said party leaders were coordinating with civil-society organizations to ensure certified results are “actually brought to life” in January.

The scenario sounds unprecedented—but American history contains a disturbing warning.

In 1863, a House clerk opposed to Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation and reconstruction policies conspired to influence the speaker election. He excluded 16 Republicans supportive of Lincoln while adding three conservatives who were more skeptical of the president.

Lincoln’s allies ultimately restored the excluded members. But Kalt concluded that a more disciplined group of conspirators might have seized control of the chamber.

The concern has intensified because Johnson helped support Trump’s effort to challenge the 2020 presidential election and has repeatedly amplified unsupported suspicions about voting.

Follow @allchronology

Johnson once claimed Americans “know intuitively” that many undocumented immigrants vote in federal elections, while acknowledging that he possessed no number proving it. An extensive federal effort since January 2025 has reportedly charged only 41 alleged noncitizens with voting, compared with roughly 150 million participants in the previous presidential election.

The speaker has also cast suspicion on late-counted ballots that favor Democrats—a predictable phenomenon often called the “red mirage”—and defended Trump after the president said Republicans should “take over the voting” in multiple places.

None of that proves Republicans will attempt to overturn the midterms.

But procedures once regarded as too obscure or outrageous to weaponize are now being examined as possible weak points in the transfer of congressional power.

Democrats believe their strongest protection is an overwhelming victory—one large enough that excluding one or two candidates could not change the outcome.

“By turning out in historic numbers,” Sewell said, “we will make this election too big to rig.”

Because in the most frightening scenario, winning the election is only the first battle.

The second begins before the winners are even allowed to take the oath.