Photo via The Bulwark

Heads We Win, Tails You’re Decertified

Read the original at The Bulwark ↗
Cite

Saletan, W. (2026, November 3). Heads We Win, Tails You’re Decertified. The Bulwark. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/election-certification-seating-formalities-republicans

Dated from the outlet's own feed. Check the original for its byline.

The Bulwark · collected 2026-11-03 · by Will Saletan commentary

Quick Summary

Republican officials and former President Trump are attempting to challenge election results through post-election certification processes in states like Alaska. If Democratic candidates win, Republican governors and legislatures could reject these outcomes. This strategy includes legal interventions such as a recent lawsuit filed by DOJ under Trump's direction, aiming to prevent Alaska from certifying results it deems invalid due to voter confusion. Despite federal courts rejecting this approach, Republicans continue to push for states to withhold certification if they believe the election was not decided by genuine voter intent.
Written by AI on 2026-11-03, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

As of November 3, 2026, Republicans are attempting to institutionalize post-election challenges by leveraging two stages: certification and seating. In the certification stage, Republican governors and state legislatures could reject election results if a Democratic nominee leads. In the seating phase, even after a state certifies a Democrat's victory, Republicans in Congress might block their seat in office. This strategy builds on previous efforts from 2020 when Republicans filed numerous lawsuits to challenge presidential election results in multiple states and attempted to use state legislatures to overturn losses. Additionally, the DOJ recently filed a suit against California to prevent vote-by-mail ballots received from individuals identified as likely noncitizens from being tabulated until their citizenship status is verified. This legal action underscores the ongoing tension over electoral integrity and procedural disputes.

Written for “Heads We Win Tail You're Decertified” on 2026-11-04, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The model judged this article politically coded and scored it -0.45, but every quote it verified points right, so the score is not published.
Written under an earlier scoring contract, which gave a paragraph rather than checkable quotes. Re-analysing this article replaces it.
Leaning score withheld for article 126158: score contradicts its own evidence · logged 2026-11-03

Story

📰 Heads We Win Tail You're Decertified
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 25% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 1 of 3 claims Outlet record 69/100
“Article A discusses potential changes in voting laws due to anticipated Democratic gains, while Article B focuses on Republican strategies for contesting election outcomes post-certification.”
Global News
⚖️ Leans left Hedges 7 of 20 claims Outlet record 63/100
“The articles discuss different stages of potential election disputes rather than a single specific incident.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
57
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
25%
14 of 57 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher signals
not measured
these signals count newsroom corrections; Commentary has none to count
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-11-03 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

The Bulwark · 593 article(s) · 0 correction(s) detected
No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

Will Saletan
11 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 WHEN WILL WE KNOW the outcome of the midterm elections?
2026-11-03 · mixed framing · Heads We Win, Tails You’re Decertified
🔮 Collins essentially concedes that the pain inflicted by her own party will go on, and that all she can do is lessen it.
2026-10-20 · assertive framing · The Case Against Susan Collins
🔮 Susan Collins Couldn't Answer One Simple Question About Trump
🔮 Jack Smith Reveals the Words That Could Have Buried Trump Will Saletan lays out the case against Donald Trump that Jack Smith never got to present at trial.
🔮 Will Saletan and Joe Perticone take on the strange fight, the golf-industry interests behind it, and why Trump is picking on one of his own loyal allies with Republicans already staring down a brutal midterm environment.
🔮 The committee’s senators, listening to Smith’s remarks, could have chosen to identify with the honest Republicans he cited as models.
2026-09-30 · assertive framing · Jack Smith and the Republican Smear Squad
🔮 In the first ad, he declares, “Together we will defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America.”
2026-09-29 · assertive framing · Congratulations, You’re a Trump Campaign Donor
🔮 Will Saletan meticulously breaks down Todd Blanche’s defense of Trump’s press crackdown, Mike Waltz getting confronted with the president’s own words, and the shifting story about the war with Iran.
🔮 Will Saletan runs their own definition of “communism” against Donald Trump’s promises of $5,000 checks, government stakes in private companies, admiration for China, and even his jokes about being “the greatest communist in history”—and finds the GOP’s argument collapsing under its own weight.
🔮 Will Saletan takes on Trump’s Venezuela oil deal, as the president openly brags that Venezuelan oil has already paid for the war “many times over” and Republicans argue that U.S. Will Saletan takes on Trump’s Venezuela oil deal, as the president openly brags that Venezuelan oil has already paid for the war “many times over” and Republicans argue that U.S. oil companies deserve benefits for the next 100 years.
Also by Will Saletan
The Case Against Susan Collins
2026-10-20 · The Bulwark
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 11 articles by Will Saletan →

Topics

Alaska DOJ Democrats Republican Republicans

Subjects

Alaska GPE · 6× DOJ ORG · 5× Republicans NORP · 5× Sullivan PERSON · 5× Democrats NORP · 3× Republican NORP · 3× Trump PERSON · 3× Democratic NORP · 2× Dunleavy PERSON · 2× Peltola PERSON · 2×

Narrative

And three weeks ago, DOJ filed a suit to stop California “from tabulating in federal elections vote-by-mail ballots received from individuals identified by the Federal Government as likely noncitizens,” at least “until those individuals’ citizenship status can be verified.”
framing: mixed · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-11-03
🔮 WHEN WILL WE KNOW the outcome of the midterm elections?
2026-11-03 · The Bulwark
Heads We Win, Tails You’re Decertified · mixed framing

Claims (57 extracted, 14 hedged)

WHEN WILL WE KNOW the outcome of the midterm elections? asserted
WE → know → elections
If your answer is ‘when all the ballots are counted,’ think again. asserted
ballots → count → ?
Republicans are trying to institutionalize two later stages at which they could overturn the results. uncertain
they → try → results
The first stage is certification: If a Democratic nominee comes out ahead, Republican governors and state legislatures could decide whether to reject the numbers. uncertain
governors → come → numbers
The second stage is seating: If a state certifies a Democrat’s victory, Republicans in Congress could refuse to let her take office. uncertain
her → certify → office
Donald Trump and his party are trying to convert them into routine forums for dispute. asserted
Trump → try → dispute
Republicans didn’t invent post-election challenges. asserted
Republicans → invent → challenges
Democrats have challenged elections themselves, most notably after the Bush-Gore contest of 2000. asserted
Democrats → challenge → 2000
But in 2020, Republicans raised the game to a new level, filing dozens of lawsuits to challenge presidential election results in multiple states. asserted
Republicans → raise → states
They tried to use state legislatures to overturn their losses. asserted
They → try → losses
And on January 6th, they turned the congressional certification of electors into a political and literal combat zone. asserted
they → turn → zone
Trump went on to claim that if Democrats hadn’t rigged the election, he “probably would have won all fifty” states. uncertain
he → go → states
The latest battleground is Alaska, where Democrats allegedly conspired to put a man named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. on the ballot alongside the state’s incumbent Republican senator, Dan S. Sullivan. uncertain
Democrats → conspire → senator
Alaskan election officials tried to solve the problem by identifying Sen. Sullivan on the ballot as the incumbent. asserted
officials → try → incumbent
And since Alaska has ranked-choice voting, anyone who’s confused could vote for both Dan Sullivans—one as a first choice, the other as a second—so that if the other Sullivan is eliminated while the incumbent remains in contention, their vote transfers to the incumbent. uncertain
vote → have → incumbent
Nevertheless, if Sen. Sullivan loses, Republicans are threatening to reject the results. asserted
Republicans → lose → results
Two weeks ago, Trump’s Department of Justice filed suit to block Alaska “from certifying any result that may be impacted by voter confusion. uncertain
that → file → confusion
” DOJ defined this confusion scenario as Sen. Sullivan losing the election by a margin smaller than the number of votes cast for the other Sullivan. asserted
Sullivan → define → Sullivan
The next day, Trump affirmed that he had told DOJ to file the suit. asserted
he → affirm → suit
“I’m the one that said, ‘Do it,’” he told the press. asserted
he → ’m → press
DOJ’s rationale for federal intervention was flimsy, and on Sunday, a federal court rejected it. asserted
court → reject → it
DOJ appealed the same day. asserted
DOJ → appeal → ?
But the administration’s underlying goal, according to Attorney General Todd Blanche, is to get Alaska itself to withhold certification. uncertain
Alaska → accord → certification
“If a court ultimately determines that [the election] was decided because of confusion and not the will of the voters, then we do not think the states should certify,” Blanche explained on Face the Nation a week ago. asserted
Blanche → determine → Nation
He said DOJ’s aim was “to allow a process for Alaska to decide who should be certified as a winner.” asserted
who → say → winner
Whatever Election Day brings, we’ll need independent journalism to hold the powerful accountable, to challenge falsehoods and hypocrisy, and to help figure out what comes next. asserted
what → bring → falsehoods
Join a community that’s committed to that work—through 2028 and beyond. asserted
that → join → 2028
In the past few days, Alaska’s Republican governor, Mike Dunleavy, has hinted in several interviews that the state might overturn a victory by the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola. uncertain
state → hint → nominee
On Friday, Dunleavy was asked on NewsNation whether he would certify a Peltola win. asserted
he → ask → win
“If we find out there’s wrongdoing, and if that means that the certification then is stopped or changed, then that’s what happens,” he replied. asserted
he → find → ?
Dunleavy also suggested that even if Peltola were certified as the winner, the state might play a subsequent role in blocking her from taking office. uncertain
state → suggest → office
“If we conclude that . . . there were things that should not have happened—let me put it that way—that are illegal, we will act on that,” he said. asserted
he → conclude → that
“And that may in fact impact whether somebody is seated in the U.S. Senate. uncertain
somebody → impact → Senate
On Fox News, anchors and pundits are chattering with excitement at the prospect of defying a Peltola victory. asserted
anchors → chatter → victory
On Thursday, Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary to President George W. Bush, said that if Peltola were to win by a small margin, “I don’t know that the Senate is going to seat her. asserted
Senate → say → her
On Saturday, Jason Chaffetz, a Fox contributor and former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, suggested that DOJ’s investigation of the election could “take it to the point that she doesn’t get seated.” uncertain
she → suggest → point
On Monday, Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former political adviser, told Fox & Friends that if Peltola were to win, “I don’t think they should seat her.” asserted
they → tell → her
It’s not just the talking heads: Republican senators, who could actually move to stop Peltola from being seated, seem open to the idea. uncertain
who → ’ → idea
On Saturday, Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) tweeted, “This was a fraud perpetrated against the people of Alaska. asserted
This → tweet → Alaska
Under no circumstances should Mary Peltola be seated if she wins an election in a fraudulent manner.” asserted
she → seat → manner
…and 17 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support