Critics argue that Johnson's actions are necessary to address logistical issues and ensure fair elections. They contend that delaying elections or redrawing maps can prevent voter disenfranchisement and improve the integrity of electoral processes, especially in states facing significant demographic shifts or natural disasters. However, this defense falls flat when you consider the timing and political context.

The risk lies in the potential for widespread adoption of these tactics across multiple states, undermining democratic principles.

Johnson's actions are driven by a desire to maintain GOP control over state legislatures and congressional districts.

The future looks bleak for American democracy if such practices become commonplace. The tribalism of partisans will likely split along predictable lines: those who see this as a necessary evil versus those who view it as an existential threat to democratic norms. Johnson’s actions could set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for further erosion of electoral integrity.

This move will polarize voters and political analysts alike. Supporters will hail it as a strategic necessity, while opponents will denounce it as a betrayal of democratic values. Ultimately, this could lead to increased voter turnout among those who feel disenfranchised, but also to greater cynicism about the electoral process.