I have seen people claim there will be "a new election" or "new elections."

I have completely discounted this theory due to there being no constitutional provision to allow it.

But ... not so fast.

Trump was lawfully elected, and Joey B. was unlawfully "installed." If that issue gets corrected via military, then there is no need for a new presidential election (which would not be authorized by the Constitution). So, everything is cool on the POTUS front.

But what about Congress? The MAJORITY of those in Congress right now ARE THERE UNLAWFULLY.

Some (many? most?) might be there due to election fraud in their favor. If that comes out, they are to be booted out (and arrested). Even if that does not happen, many of them violated their oath of office when they voted to certify unlawful electors, and therefore violated the 14th Amendment, Section 3. In that case, too, they would be booted out as no longer eligible to hold office.

So, what happens when members of Congress (not POTUS) leave office early for any reason?

For members of the House of Representatives, guess what is needed to replace those previous office holders? A NEW ELECTION!

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

-- Article I, Section 2

What about replacing senators? Well, it gets REALLY interesting!

Originally, the Constitution was written to make all US senators elected by the STATE LEGISLATURES, and NOT by the popular vote of the people. In the event of a vacancy, the legislature would elect a replacement. If the state legislature was in recess, the goveror of the state would appoint someone, and then the legislature would confirm or vote on someone else, once they were back in session.

But then, the 17th Amendment happened. It purportedly changed that process. It changed the election of US senators to a popular vote of the people of the state, rather than the state legislature. Since then, any vacancy is temporarily filled by the governor, and then a new election is eventually held for the permanent replacement.

BUT ...

There is a problem with the 17th Amendment. It was ratified in 1913 (infamous year). That was after 1871. So, if the 1871 theory is correct, then the 17th Amendment is not valid.

Futhermore, an argument has been made for a long time that the 17th Amendment was never valid, regardless, because it violates the Constitution.

How can a constitutional amendment violate the Constitution? Doesn't an amendment, by definition, change the Constitution? Well, yes and no.

According the the Constitution, the document can be amended, BUT there are TWO EXCEPTIONS to that general rule. There were TWO things that could NEVER be amended.

One was the compromise that slavery would be allowed for 21 years after 1787 (this had to do with the law of minority/majority age at the time), and the other was that NO STATE MAY BE DENIED ITS SUFFRAGE (its vote) ... IN THE SENATE.

Because the people of the state elect the senators (post-17th Amendment), the US senators no longer represent the states (sound familiar?). As the argument goes, the 17th Amendment took away the voting rights of the states (legislatures) -- thus making the amendment unconstitutional on its face (without regard to 1871).

See Article 5:

[The Constitution can be amended] ... Provided that ... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So, no new election for POTUS. No need, since it just has to be proven that Trump won. But, NEW ELECTIONS for members of the House, and new elections for the US Senate -- but will it be by the people of the states, or by the state legislatures as the Constitution requires?