Should there be a mechanism for government to continue if no election can be held?

[President Johnson]

Inspired from the What-if thread about how 2020 would have turned out if Yellowstone erupted rather than Covid emerging. Should there be a clear constitutional mechanism to continue the US government in case an election can't be held? Such circumstances may actually arrive at some point in time, for example if Yellowstone indeed erupts months before the presidential election. Even before the midterms it could be problematic since all congress(wo)men are up for election. How should said mechanism look like? I think it should definitely be made sure it can't be abused by a president with autocratic tendencies whose objective is only to stay on power.

Other countries have various laws and constitutional amendments in the books that prevent such a government crisis. In Germany for example the legislative term could be extended with a two-thirds majority. Even without the extension, the cabinet could serve on an acting basis for an unlimited amount of time.

I know that theoretically the president pro term would take over after January 20 depending on composition of the newly 66 member senate. But I guess that wouldn't work out very well; and the House has no members at all.

[brucejoel99]

As far as the executive branch & the continuity thereof is concerned, you answered your own question, in that whatever remains of a rump-Senate could still elect a PPT, who'd then begin serving as Acting President with immediate effect: with the rump-Senate's help, they'd be able to appoint a whole new Cabinet, Joint Chiefs of Staff, & Supreme Court, if need be. It wouldn't be pretty, but it is what's do-able, though there's still unfortunately nothing that's provided for to stop the lack of a House from completely f**king the legislative process up at a time when it might arguably be needed more than ever.

[Del Tachi]

Yup, the Senate is a continuing body.  Not only do 66 of its members continue serving without interruption at the beginning of a new Congress, but it does not have to adopt or readopt its rules at the beginning of each new term.

[Gary JG]

The problem seems to be producing a House of Representatives, given that all its members need to be elected. What is needed is for a quorum to assemble. I presume that the quorum could be construed as more than half of any members who had actually been elected, rather than more than half of the 435 potential members. If that is correct then so long as a few states managed to hold some sort of election, then a House could be constituted.

[brucejoel99]

The problem seems to be producing a House of Representatives, given that all its members need to be elected. What is needed is for a quorum to assemble. I presume that the quorum could be construed as more than half of any members who had actually been elected, rather than more than half of the 435 potential members. If that is correct then so long as a few states managed to hold some sort of election, then a House could be constituted.

That's correct! A quorum is merely just a simple majority of the House's elected members, so 218 when there are no vacancies, & arguably only 1 in the event that there were to be 434 simultaneous vacancies. In any event, though, we'd have one hell of a huge-ass problem on our hands if not even a single state were able to conduct their elections.