How would a vote in US congress taken under duress be later invalidated?

Question

My question is inspired by the hypothetical actions of some of the recent insurectionists, one of whom was pictured below:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zip-cuffs-capitol-riots/

At least 2 men raiding the Capitol bought restraints with them, as if they were preparing to take hostages.

Now this didn't eventuate, and we wont know their motivations for a while, if ever (they may have wanted some human shields, they may have been planning executions, or worse unspeakable things). But combining this with what was happening on the floor and Trump's rhetoric at the time, a crazy plan seems to emerge where they weren't hoping to just delay Biden's confirmation, but actually hold politicians hostage until they made Trump president.

Now this seems like something out of a bad action movie, but I also understand that the US constitution and procedural laws formalised many of these processes - x must occur on day y by process z - leaving little room for "we need to retake the vote because half to room was under duress" style concerns.

So if this insurrection plan succeeded, far fetched as it was, and they got everyone to say the right words to make Trump "win", how would that mess be cleaned up politically / legally?

How do you invalidate a congressional decision due to duress?

(If there is a "undo last action" ability of Congress, or "person A was out of position, therefore everything was invalid" ability, that sounds like it could be abused in the course of normal politics. Trump still has allies in Congress so such corrective action wouldn't be unanimous - some politicians would object to reverting the outcome)

Answer 1

The simple fact is that there is a ghost in the machine.

It is common to see questions on this forum discussing the working of the Constitution in some extreme condition. Perhaps because many people here have a connection to software engineering, the Constitution is viewed like a computer program, and the government is the hardware which runs that program. And like a computer, the government is assumed in each state to read the constitution, and if a clause matches the current state then execute that clause, and repeat. A computer follows rules it doesn't ever think about them.

But if the government is a machine, it is a machine composed of hundreds of thinking, intelligent agents. And in extreme conditions, the Constitution doesn't give a clear rule for getting from that state to the next.

A vote taken under duress is not a vote at all. There is no combination of "right words" that could make the vote a vote. If clarity was needed, a simple resolution would suffice. "The House refutes all actions taken in this chamber while members were bound and gagged".

So, yes, this would be a mess, but it is a mess that could be sorted out by the people upholding the Constitution, not following it mindlessly.

Answer 2

If you want some kind of (non-US) historical precedent... all Acts of Parliament under the Cromwell regime (protectorate) were rendered void in the The Restoration.

The Statute Book is a blank from the close of the 16th year of Charles I. (1640–1) to the year of the Restoration, the so-called 12th year of Charles II. (1660). Yet the intervening period was a time of great legislative activity; the attention of Parliament was not solely directed to war, or finance, or constitutional experiments; there was much general legislation of every kind; many legal and social reforms were attempted which, if often premature and abortive, were yet in some instances permanent and farreaching.

I recall reading somewhere (but I can't find the ref again right now) that in some instances the Acts from the Protectorate were even literally burned after The Restoration. Thankfully (from historians' perspective) some copies survived. In any case, the years of the Protectorate were literally erased from the later (official) law books.

If you want something more in a US tradition, invoking an "Act of God" for overriding some procedural constitutional matters, would probably be the thing

At the presidential count ceremony in 1857 a dispute erupted over Wisconsin’s five electoral votes, which had been delivered a day after the deadline because of a blizzard. [...]

The Wisconsin votes didn’t make any difference in the outcome of the 1856 election. But some lawmakers warned that permitting the presiding officer to accept a state’s illegal vote could set a “dangerous precedent,” according to Congress’s record of the debate in the Congressional Globe. [...]

[In the end,] Wisconsin’s votes were counted because Congress had agreed that an “Act of God” had prevented the electors from reaching the state capital of Madison on time.