The What-If Chronicles: A Potential Constitutional Crisis in the 2024 Election
What if: Harris Becomes President after Votes Have Been Cast for Biden?
With Joe Biden’s age and obvious health concerns at center stage in the election, questions about the continuity of the presidency and the electoral process could lead to a bonafide Constitutional Crisis. If, in this hypothetical scenario, President Biden were to resign or be removed from office right before election day, after votes have been cast in early voting, the nation could face an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
Following the provisions of the 25th Amendment, Vice President Harris would ascend to the presidency, the minute Biden is no longer able to fulfill his duties. At a minimum, she would remain President up until the transfer of power the following January. But it’s the timing of this hypothetical event that causes the issue, with a significant portion of the electorate having expressed their choices through early voting.
In this scenario, Harris’ name will not be on the ballot as a “Presidential” candidate. At best, she would be listed as the “Vice President” … assuming Biden continues to keep her on his ticket. At the time of this writing, it looks like he will.
But what happens in the election if Biden is unable to continue? There is a risk, however small, that Biden could win the election even though he would not assume office. Some scholars would argue, that despite the vagueness of the Constitution in this matter, the 2024 presidential election would automatically pass to Harris … even though she was not elected as “President”.
Even though partisan political operatives would attempt to make a case that President Harris could simply cancel the election, this is simply not the case, and it would be grossly unconstitutional for a President to attempt to cancel the election. If she did, she would almost certainly be impeached, and the Speaker of the House would step in…congratulations Speaker Johnson.
A more likely scenario is that the Democrat party would instantly jump into action and declare that ALL votes previously cast for Biden are hereby directed to a new nominee. They will make the farcical assertion that the votes cast were for a “party”, not a “person”.
Drawing on historical examples, we can reflect on the 1912 U.S. presidential election, where the sudden death of the Republican Party’s Vice Presidential candidate, James Sherman, prompted rapid adjustments. In a race split between President Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt, the unexpected vacancy led to the selection of Nicholas Murray Butler as the new Vice-Presidential candidate. The ensuing controversy likely contributed to Woodrow Wilson’s victory.
In another example, the tragic plane crash involving Senator Paul Wellstone occurred on October 25, 2002, just 11 days before the scheduled U.S. Senate election in Minnesota. Senator Wellstone, a Democrat seeking re-election for a third term, was traveling with his wife Sheila, their daughter Marcia, three campaign staffers, and two pilots when their plane went down in freezing weather conditions in northern Minnesota.
The sudden and devastating crash resulted in the loss of Senator Wellstone, his wife, his daughter, and the other passengers on board. The incident sent shockwaves through the state and the nation, as Wellstone was a well-respected and influential figure in Minnesota politics.
With the election only days away and early voting already underway, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL), which is affiliated with the Democratic Party in Minnesota, faced a significant challenge. Minnesota law allowed the major political parties to replace a candidate in the event of death within a certain timeframe before the election.
In response to the tragedy, the DFL swiftly convened to select a replacement candidate. Former Vice President Walter Mondale emerged as the party’s choice to fill the vacancy left by Senator Wellstone. Walter Mondale had a long and distinguished political career, having served as Vice President under President Jimmy Carter and as a U.S. Senator from Minnesota prior to that.
The decision to replace Wellstone with Mondale was not without controversy, as some critics argued that the sudden change in candidate disrupted the electoral process. Nevertheless, the DFL moved forward with Mondale’s candidacy, and his name was placed on the ballot as the new Democratic nominee. He ultimately lost, but the precedent stands.
Another example is the accent of Gerald Ford.
Gerald Ford’s ascension to the presidency was indeed a unique and historic event. Ford became the 38th Vice President of the United States on December 6, 1973, following the resignation of Vice-President Spiro Agnew, who faced legal troubles related to tax evasion and bribery. Ford, a Congressman from Michigan and the House Minority Leader, was appointed by President Richard Nixon as Vice-President, and confirmed by Congress as Agnew’s replacement.
The political landscape took a dramatic turn when President Richard Nixon faced the Watergate scandal, a political crisis involving the cover-up of illegal activities within the Nixon administration. As the scandal intensified and the likelihood of Nixon’s impeachment grew, Gerald Ford found himself thrust into the limelight.
On August 8, 1974, Richard Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign from office. Following Nixon’s resignation, Gerald Ford was sworn in as the 38th President of the United States on August 9, 1974.
Now, let’s take this hypothetical scenario a step further. Imagine that, due to unforeseen circumstances, Joe Biden is unable to follow through with the election. What are the legal maneuvers that the Democrat Party would embark to resolve the situation?
Faced with this unprecedented challenge, the Democratic Party makes a groundbreaking decision. All delegates, traditionally bound by primary and caucus outcomes, are granted the status of superdelegates, able to vote for any candidate they choose.
With amazing and mind-baffling speed, the majority of delegates rally around California Governor Gavin Newsom, instead of sitting President, Kamala Harris. Known for his progressive policies and leadership, Newsom emerges as a consensus candidate who could unite the party and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters…so they believe.
This scenario sets the stage for an unconventional Democratic National Convention, where every delegate, now a superdelegate, wields independent voting rights. The decision to pivot towards Governor Newsom reflects a collective belief that he possesses the qualities necessary to lead the party and the nation during a challenging period.
However there is no legal or constitutional authority that grants a party the ability to transfer a vote cast by a citizen from one person to another. But this won’t stop Democrats from trying and they most assuridily will find a judge to agree with them … in these extraordinary times.
Therefore, Harris would continue as the first Woman President until Newsom is sworn in on January 20, 2025.
But this hypothetical scenario assumes an alternate universe where Donald Trump is not victorious in the 2024 election. The more likely scenario is that the Democrats will use the chaos caused by Biden’s inability to continue with the election to declare that Trump, once again, is an illegitimate President. Thus, causing a whole new era of riots in the streets, impeachments, FBI setups etc. … just like 2016.
FATE, TX – The City Council voted to investigate Councilman Mark Hatley, setting off a political drama that some view as a battle of power between two diametrically opposed groups.
At the center of the dispute is an ethics complaint filed March 25, 2026, by Councilman Scott Kelley against Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mark Hatley, tied to audio recordings previously reported by Pipkins Reports. The Fate City Council took up the matter during its April 6 regular meeting at City Hall where members entered executive session to review the complaint under provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act and personnel deliberation statutes.
According to the official agenda, council members met privately with legal counsel to conduct an initial screening of the complaint. The session relied on guidance from attorney Ross Fischer of Ross Fischer Law, PLLC, whose memorandum outlined potential violations of the city’s Code of Ethics. That memo, later made public by council vote, identified two allegations as sufficiently credible to warrant further investigation: interference in administrative matters and disclosure of confidential information.
[Memorandum from Ross Fischer]
The memorandum detailed specific excerpts from recorded conversations between Hatley and City Manager Michael Kovacs, including alleged remarks suggesting pressure or influence related to the police chief’s employment. In one instance cited in Fischer’s memorandum, Kelley asserts that Hatley allegedly warned Kovacs that the situation “would not bode well” for him, language the memo suggests could be interpreted as administrative interference under Section 2-309(10) of the city’s ethics code.
The second allegation centers on the release of the recordings themselves. Fischer’s analysis concluded that the audio contained discussions about personnel matters typically reserved for closed session, and therefore may constitute confidential information under Section 2-309(6). The memo notes that the City Council later voted to waive privilege and release the recordings officially, but that Hatley had allegedly distributed them prior to that authorization.
During the open session that followed, Councilman Mark Harper moved to make the executive session public, a motion seconded by Councilman Codi Chinn and approved unanimously, 7-0. Councilman Hatley voted in favor of that motion, joining the full council in opening the executive session discussion to the public for transparency.
Councilman Kelley then made a motion to proceed with a formal investigation into Hatley’s conduct, citing the findings outlined in the memo. In doing so, Kelley referred to Pipkins Reports as a “local opinion blogger,” a characterization that may be viewed by some as dismissive.
The council ultimately voted 5-2 to move forward with the investigation. Mayor Greenberg and Councilman Hatley cast the dissenting votes, while the remaining five supported the inquiry. According to Councilman Rick Maneval, Fischer indicated during executive session that he did not expect an investigation to uncover additional substantive facts beyond what was already known, aside from giving Hatley an opportunity to formally respond.
In a separate but related action, the council voted unanimously, 7-0, to dismiss a third allegation from the ethics complaint that falls under Section 2-309(5), which concerns granting special consideration or advantage. Fischer’s memo found that the claim lacked sufficient detail and failed to identify a specific beneficiary, rendering it inadequate under the city’s ethics standards.
The decisions come amid a broader political dispute, as one of the members of a recall petition is now also under investigation for ethics violations.
Mark Hatley is one of three councilmen, along with Rick Maneval and Martha Huffman, plus Mayor Andrew Greenberg, who are currently the subject of a circulating recall petition. Some residents have suggested that effort is, at least in part, a response to a separate recall targeting Councilman Codi Chinn, which is set to appear on the May ballot.
Chinn’s public supporters include Councilman Mark Harper and Councilman Scott Kelley, both of whom now play central roles in the current ethics dispute. Harper has been accused by City Manager Michael Kovacs of making threatening statements, an allegation that has not been adjudicated but adds another layer of tension to an already volatile situation.
From a procedural standpoint, the council’s vote will authorize Ross Fischer to conduct an investigation, as the City’s in-house attorney would have a conflict of interest.
** Mark Hatley couldn’t be reached for comment prior to publication.
FATE, TX – A document containing unproven allegations, some of which could raise defamation concerns if false, and stamped with a warning against distribution, is now at the center of a growing political storm in Fate, Texas, after a student’s testimony revealed it was nonetheless handed out at a public recall event targeting the mayor.
At the March 23, 2026 Fate City Council meeting, Gus Richardson, a local debate student, stepped forward during public comment and described attending a petition signing event tied to the ongoing recall effort against Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Councilman Mark Hatley, Councilman Rick Maneval, and Councilwoman Martha Huffman.
According to Richardson’s testimony, he was provided a document outlining reasons for removing the mayor by individuals he identified as being involved in the recall effort.
The document was marked with a warning that read: “This document is for reference purposes only. Distribution and photographs are strictly prohibited.” Despite the printed warning, Richardson proceeded to photograph the document, and the organizer then removed the document from his hands, Richardson stated.
[Video of presentation of Gus Richardson to Fate City Council]
That contradiction, a document marked for secrecy but distributed in a public setting as reasons for the removal of an elected Mayor, quickly became the focal point of Richardson’s remarks. While Richardson questioned the validity of some of the allegations made in the document, his primary focus was on the process and transparency behind their circulation.
Pipkins Reports has obtained a copy of the document and presents it here as part of this report. We note that notices of, “DISTRIBUTION AND PHOTOGRAPHS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED”, generally do not carry clear legal enforceability in a public setting.
Notably, one of the document’s central allegations involves the recording of city officials, and it is a matter of public record that Mayor Greenberg did record at least one phone call with Councilwoman Codi Chinn, a recording later released by Pipkins Reports, though the motivations and context surrounding that call remain disputed.
The document itself is structured as a list of allegations under several headings, including “Abuse of Power,” “Charter Violations,” “Texas Ethics Commission Errors,” and “Code of Ethics Violations.” It presents the claims in declarative language, offering no citations, supporting documentation, or sourcing within the text.
Under “Abuse of Power,” the document asserts that Mayor Greenberg secretly recorded city officials and staff for personal benefit, used his position to secure special privileges, and intentionally misled citizens about city governance and charter provisions. It further claims he used his authority for actions benefiting his private interests and threatened board members with removal if they questioned city officials.
Another claim alleges that the mayor allowed what the document describes as “potential electioneering” during a city council meeting, suggesting unequal treatment between certain speakers and regular citizens. Additional points accuse him of interfering in administrative staffing decisions and engaging with city staff without the required council authorization.
The section labeled “Texas Ethics Commission Errors” raises campaign-related concerns, including an allegation that required political advertising disclosures were omitted from campaign signs and that semiannual campaign finance reports were not filed on time in July 2025 and January 2026. It further states that only one of those reports has been remedied, though no official findings from the Texas Ethics Commission are cited in the document itself.
Other portions of the document claim violations of the city’s code of ethics, including representing private interests before the council, and paint a broader picture of what is described as a “lack of transparency.” The final section, labeled “Loss of Confidence,” includes assertions that the mayor has failed to keep citizens informed, does not understand the city charter, and has placed the city at risk of retaliation and lawsuits.
None of the claims included in the document were accompanied by evidence within the material reviewed, and the organizers explanation to Richardson, he states, was that the document “wasn’t verified yet and was simply what they believed.” However, the language used presents the allegations as statements of fact, rather than opinion, a distinction that carries legal implications if the claims cannot be substantiated.
Richardson’s testimony only briefly touched on how be believed the printed allegations were false. Instead, he focused on what he characterized as an inconsistency, that a document warning against distribution was nonetheless handed out to members of the public at an organized event. His remarks, measured in tone, appeared aimed at prompting greater transparency from those involved in the recall effort.
The City Council did not provide a response during the meeting regarding the document or its contents. This is typical of the Public Comments section of the agenda.
Mayor Greenberg’s Comment
Pipkins Reports reached out to Mayor Greenberg for comment. Regarding the document, he stated, “It’s a list of broad accusations without real evidence or specifics, and that’s just not a fair or productive way to have a conversation. If you’re going to make claims, don’t hide behind a command not to take photos or share-if they are strong enough to try to get people upset, they should be strong enough to be share publicly and examined. If someone disagrees with my policies, that’s completely fair, but pushing baseless accusations this way is disappointing.“
Christopher Rains Comment
We also reached out to Christopher Rains, the petition organizer, who it appears was also the person to whom Richardson spoke to. He stated, “It [the conversation] is not how I remember the exchange. I was talking with two people, both combative in nature and upon recognizing that they were not in support tried to exit the exchange as quickly as possible. If I misspoke, I am not above admitting as much. I am not a politician and have no aspirations to become one, I am not afraid to say I am wrong. But, I stated and reiterated many times that I was there because I believe there were charter violations based on my understanding of the charter. He claimed that I said they broke the law, I clarified that I did not believe it was criminally illegal, but a civil violation and morally questionable.“
Ashley Rains was also respectful to our request for comment and provided the following statement: “I was not surprised to see Gus Richardson, or his mother, at the City Council meeting Monday evening. If anything, I was proud and impressed to see Gus in attendance and participating. Proud because I firmly believe it’s imperative that our younger generations become interested and involved in the future of our government, at all levels. Our current political climate may not be where it is today if that had been the case sooner.
I was simultaneously impressed by his willingness to speak publicly on such a controversial topic. Not many young people have the wherewithal or courage to do so. I applaud him for that.
However, I was surprised to hear my name casually mentioned, while presenting as though he was unsure who the gentleman was he speaking with.
Gus and his mother approached our table while I was engaged in conversation with another citizen. But my husband is both cordial and a business professional. He shakes your hand and introduces himself, every time, with every new person we encounter in a mutually respectful setting.
I was unable to join their conversation until the last couple of minutes of their exchange. To hear my name referenced in the speech Gus delivered Monday evening was surprising, as the premise of the delivery seemed to be geared more toward attacking my campaign rather than presenting the facts of the exchange as the truly were.
I still applaud his involvement and courage. I also recognize the true potential he has to offer our society, political or otherwise. But, truthfully, I would’ve preferred to hear the recollection of events delivered less politically and more forthright.“
As the recall effort continues to unfold, the emergence of this document and the circumstances surrounding its distribution are likely to draw increased scrutiny from both the public and those directly involved. Richardson’s testimony has added a new layer to an already contentious political environment, raising questions not only about the claims themselves, but about how information is being presented to voters in the course of the petition process.
For now, the allegations outlined in the document remain unverified, and no formal findings by relevant authorities have been publicly confirmed. As the situation develops, the focus may shift toward greater transparency from all parties involved, particularly as residents weigh the credibility of the information being circulated in connection with the recall effort.
FATE, TX – Voters in Fate may soon face a familiar name on the ballot, but beneath the surface of Allen Robbins’ political comeback lies a record that could reshape how residents view his return. As the May 2026 city council election approaches, Robbins, a former Fate councilman, is seeking another term, bringing with him a documented voting history that raises pointed questions about taxes, fees, and development decisions that directly affected residents’ wallets and the city’s character.
Public records from the City of Fate show that during his previous tenure, Robbins not only introduced a series of consequential motions, but in each instance, those motions ultimately passed the council. The result was a slate of enacted policies that increased costs and advanced higher-density development, leaving a clear legislative footprint for voters to evaluate.
Below are seven key actions tied to Robbins’ record that voters may weigh as they consider his candidacy.
1. Ratifying a Property Tax Increase
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-036, ratifying a property tax increase embedded in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2023–2024. The motion passed, formally locking in the increased tax burden tied to that budget cycle.
2. Supporting a 5.96 Percent Tax Rate Increase
Robbins also made the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 0-2023-037, setting the property tax rate at $0.26421, an effective increase of approximately 5.96 percent. The council approved the measure, resulting in a higher rate applied to property owners across the city.
3. Approving Increased Solid Waste Fees
Through Ordinance No. O-2023-038, Robbins moved to approve updated rates for solid waste and refuse collection services. The motion passed, leading to increased service charges for residents.
4. Road Fee Adoption
Although introduced by another council member, Robbins voted to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-039, establishing a $3 road fee for both single-family and multi-family residential units. The measure adds a recurring fee impacting nearly all households.
5. Zoning Change with Financial Penalties
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. O-2023-021, which amended zoning classifications on approximately 3.18 acres from Mixed Use to Mixed Use Transition for a Townhouse Development.
6. Approval of a 179-Unit Townhome Development
Through Resolution No. R-2023-055, Robbins moved to approve a Type III development plan for a 179-unit townhome project on approximately 13.9 acres. The council approved the motion, clearing the way for the higher-density development to proceed.
7. Advancing a Maximum Tax Rate Above Key Thresholds
Robbins also made the motion to approve Resolution No. R-2023-058, setting a maximum tax rate that exceeded both the no-new-revenue rate and the voter-approval rate, within the de minimis threshold allowed under Texas law. The motion passed, advancing the process for adopting the higher rate and triggering required public notices and hearings.
Context and Verification
Each of these actions is documented in official City of Fate council records from 2023. Motions made by a council member are a critical procedural step in municipal governance, and in these cases, each motion successfully resulted in council approval, meaning the policies were not merely proposed, but enacted.
Municipal leaders often justify such decisions as necessary responses to growth, infrastructure demands, and service costs. Fate, like many North Texas communities, has experienced rapid expansion, increasing pressure on roads, utilities, and public services.
The Stakes in 2026
As Robbins seeks a return to office in May 2026, voters are presented with a clear and verifiable record of policy actions that translated into tangible outcomes, higher taxes, new fees, and expanded development density.
Whether those outcomes are viewed as responsible governance or excessive government expansion will likely shape the election.
Opinion: A Pattern, Not an Accident
Seven motions. Seven approvals. One consistent direction.
That pattern is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Robbins’ record reflects a governing philosophy that leans toward increasing revenue through taxation and fees while accommodating denser residential growth.
Supporters may argue these were necessary decisions in a growing city. That is a fair argument. Growth requires infrastructure, and infrastructure costs money.
But voters should also ask whether every increase was necessary, whether alternatives were explored, and whether the cumulative impact on residents was fully considered.
Because while each individual vote might be explained away, together they tell a broader story, one of a councilman comfortable with expanding both the cost and scope of local government.
In a community like Fate, where many families moved seeking affordability and space, that story carries weight.
And in May 2026, voters will decide whether it carries enough weight to keep Allen Robbins out of office, or return him to it.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login