Suggested Electoral Count Act changes draw broad support : NPR
By: NPR. org
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A newly unveiled proposal aimed at reforming the Electoral Count Act, a widely criticized 135-year-old law governing the process of casting and counting Electoral College votes, has garnered widespread support among election experts.
The 1887 Electoral Count Act has long been lambasted by legal experts, who argue the law is poorly written, vague and antiquated.
"Imagine that there was a law on the books requiring you to travel by horse and buggy. That is literally what the Electoral Count Act is like," Rebecca Green, co-director of the election law program at the College of William & Mary, told Here & Now.
The proposed changes, mapped out Wednesday by a bipartisan group of senators, are aimed at ensuring a peaceful transition of power, a tradition that came under threat in 2021, when then-President Donald Trump led a pressure campaign on state and congressional lawmakers, and his own vice president, to overturn the election results.
Elections
A bipartisan Senate group announces a deal on reforming the Electoral Count Act
The reforms would clarify that the vice president has a "solely ministerial" role in counting Electoral College votes as president of the Senate, and make it harder for lawmakers to challenge a state's electoral votes.
Lawmakers have warned that waiting to address the flaws in the existing law could lead to additional confusion and chaos in subsequent elections, as many fear a repeat of 2021.
"If you're not sleeping well at night about the 2024 election, I think you can sleep a lot better if this bill passes," Ned Foley, director of the election law program at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, told Here & Now.
Thus far, the proposed changes have received broad support — though some on the left say they don't go far enough.
Yuval Levin, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, praised the proposal as "constructive, balanced, and very promising."
"This is a very good set of reforms," Levin wrote in an op-ed in the National Review. "The bulk of them are directed to avoiding a repeat of the sorts of problems we saw in 2020 — a situation in which the states all did their jobs but members of Congress, at the behest of the defeated incumbent president, moved to sow doubt about the outcome by capitalizing on the vagueness and looseness of the ECA."
Similarly, Andy Craig of the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute wrote the existing law is a "ticking time bomb and an invitation to a constitutional crisis" and called the proposed reform a "major step forward in fixing that problem."
"Between concerns that this bill would be too narrow and only make cosmetic changes at the behest of Republicans, versus prior Democratic plans that went too far and were overcomplicated, this announcement strikes a happy medium," Craig wrote.
The proposal is also getting support from other corners.
The nonpartisan organization Business for America is mobilizing the business community with a sign-on letter to support the passage of the Electoral Count Reform Act.
"The future of our republic relies upon effective election administration, public trust in the results, and the peaceful transfer of power — and so do our markets and businesses," Sarah Bonk, the founder and CEO of Business for America, said in a statement. "Our country cannot afford a constitutional crisis."
Foley, of Ohio State, noted that the timing of passing the reformed legislation is critical.
"It's to each party's advantage now behind the veil of ignorance to lock in place these procedures, because as much as people are focusing on maybe one party trying to make mischief, you know, after the 2024 elections, either party could make mischief under the current system," he said. "And so that's why it's much better to have both parties now agree to eliminate all possibility of mischief."
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
change the electoral vote threshold and award 100 electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.
There is nothing that should be controversial in this Act. It should be quickly passed, with a large, bipartisan majority.
Glad that they are also addressing Trump's denying President Elect Biden with funding by proposing the PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION IMPROVEMENT ACT.
Now they need to codify that the DOD and State Department are required to brief the President Elect.
Trump's petty bullshit was unacceptable.
That hateful steaming pile did the best he could to fuck things up for President Biden as he prepared to waddle out of the White House after his failed insurrection
Hopefully, this act will pass quickly.
Anybody in Congress voting against this bill should be tarred and feathered and run out of Washington on a burro.
I like your subtle touch.
No brainer. Fat fuck laid bare how vulnerable our democratic republic is.
The following is coped from:
BEGIN QUOTE
How would the law change?
As the law exists now, only one member of the House and one member of the Senate are needed to challenge any state's set of electors. ( These are the lawmakers who objected to the Electoral College count in 2021.)
The updated language would raise that threshold, shifting the requirement to 20% of the members of each chamber.
The proposal would also enact a few measures "aimed at ensuring that Congress can identify a single, conclusive slate of electors from each state," according to a fact sheet . The provisions include:
And the measure would "strike a provision of an archaic 1845 law that could be used by state legislatures to override the popular vote in their states by declaring a 'failed election' — a term that is not defined in the law."
The bill would also reaffirm that the "constitutional role of the Vice President, as the presiding officer of the joint meeting of Congress, is solely ministerial."
Some of the reforms came in part from proposals issued after the Democratic-led House Administration Committee shared a report in January, completed after months of review from legal experts .
The measure to reform the Electoral Count Act also includes a section to provide guidelines for when a new administration can receive federal resources for their transition into office.
END QUOTE
Thanks for posting this.
Until January 6th, I think a lot of people didn't realize just how easy it could have been to override the election results. If a few more dishonest people had been holding office in some states, we could have had both the popular and electoral vote overturned.
Are you thanking those Repub office holders?
Do they deserve more praise than any other elected official doing his or her job? Is not breaking the law now to be considered especially praiseworthy?
More? No. Praise? yes.
Elected officials deserve no praise for NOT Breaking LAWS. The Executive Branch is supposed to carry out and Enforce Laws. The house and senate to legislate, while the Judicial Branch is there to interpret. How the heck do you find them deserved of praise ? for NOT breaking LAWS ? Do we need to give everyone participation trophies for not going along with an insurrection and attempted coup de tata ? FCK THEM. Obey the Law and respect our Constitution, cause Trump has pushed so many envelopes and exposed so many flaws, and all because the GOP REFUSED to hold him accountable.
Well, then, I thank them for not being criminals. They deserve as much thanks for that as every other non-criminal.
“…all because the GOP REFUSED to hold him accountable.”
Other than the few, who shall be primaried, for the sole sin of speaking the truth.
What has the GOP party morphed into where when one stands by that which is TRUE, their party PUNISHES THEM as they prefer LIARS like Trump ? WTF ! A total embarrassment is the current LYING in DENIAL Party that has what, 125 candidates who are still not ok with admitting that Biden WON the Damn election and there was NO ELCTION STOLEN, as it was investigated, in depth, and there was NO ELECTION FRAUD capable of shifting the Presidency to Trump. Ignorance was not meant to rule, but man, it sure as shit ain't the exception!
I was refereeing to election officials, not the Legislature.
Those in counties in AZ, GA, PA etc. resisted and dealt with a lot of shit from rabid right wingers.
Many election officials are volunteers and those that are appointed, paid positions make little for their work. I'm thankful that we have people still that step up and perform civic duties and then have to take a load of crap from the disgruntled radical losers.
So you were referencing those like the two ladies in Georgia who were receiving Death Threats thanks to Trumpullthinskins LIES, as opposed to Joe Schmooe that the people elected. I can agree with a certain amount of praise for those under great pressure by rabid 'righties' and the delusional 45, but, what has the Republican Party come to, where to do the obvious RIGHT thing, they now should be praised. Standards are now substandard/.
Yes, the ones you said to:
and Sandy said:
Well then be a tad more specific, cause those other elected CLOWNS , FCK THEM !
FCK Barr, FCK Pence, and so ,many damn others who KNEW Trump was LYING, yet had to be under oath and threatened, in order to tell the damn TRUTH
It helps if you read the thread before shouting out.
i read the seed. I am not the only one who misinterpreted your vague assertion.
"Repub office holders" that you expect us to thank, doesn't exactly specify election officials threatened by the wound up 'righties' and Trump, but feel free to parse words, but, i too, can parse a few, as well, and no one ever seems to find that very swell.
I can't find any information about Mrs. Freeman and Ms. Moss's political affiliations. Please, do tell, if they're Republicans, do you think they deserve more thanks than if they were Democrats?
Your implications are very near to trolling.
“to take a load of crap from the disgruntled radical losers.”
And just who were those losers?
The trump sycophants who have taken the worst page from his playbook and refuse to concede even in the face of obvious defeat.
This is the radical group, the group that touts their patriotic roots while defiling all that that means.
Huh?
Not that it's very important to me, but perhaps the "vagueness" started with you comment:
I was think that you meant election officials which are typically Republican in Repub counties, but that might be my mistake, maybe you were refereeing to others "holding office in some states". If so, award yourself and igknorantrulz the win.
'Election officials' are NOT volunteers. Many poll workers are.
Most county 'election officials' are members of Election Boards and they are bipartisan. That fact is what makes Trump's Big Lie so ridiculous. The MASS conspiracy it would require would be impossible to hide.
Agree
Ok
Should a tee ball tee get a trophy for pitching a no hitter?
I do my job everyday. I don't break the law. I support the Constitution. Do I deserve praise? Of course not. It's my job. I go to work. I take care of Mrs. Gee. If these GOP politicians need praise for not breaking their vow to uphold the Constitution they have no business being there.
[removed]
Getting rid of the voice of the individual, even if that individual has what could be legitimate concerns questioning an election.
With these new rules that individual now has to convince some of their own, but also those on the opposing party who don't wish to question the outcome, basically eliminating challenging an election. This cuts both ways.
If it is a legitimate concern then 20% should be an easy burden to meet. These folks talk among themselves prior to these events. 20% does not concern me.
Keep in mind that we are talking about certified election results. A legitimate concern would be tantamount to indicting a state for failing to properly certify its results. Not very likely but, again, if a state did truly screw things up 20% should be easily met.
If the concern is legitimate, there will be more than a single individual voicing it. Just look at the number voicing the ILlegitimate concerns from the last election.
As it should be. If that individual cannot rally support from his/her own party, they do not have the facts on their side. Evidence would be the major deciding factor, not political propaganda.
I think it would be much more effective if the requirement was a given percentage of the Representatives and at least one Senator from the state being challenged. At least then they would be speaking 'for' their state AND putting their own jobs on the line. If you're going to try and disenfranchise voters, they should be from your own state.
Makes sense, a senator from the state should know best and certainly has a much better chance of getting to the bottom of things within their state. And, of course, there is the importance of accountability to the voters.
Any Representative is more capable of getting accurate information in his/her state than any 'outsider'. They know the county election officials, the county clerks and even many of the poll workers. They know what happened in their 'neck of the woods'.
I also think that if they successfully challenge a state's electoral college votes, ALL of the Federal votes should be null and void. After all, those ballots are what decided what electors were seated. Perhaps the state will either redo the election or their Congressional representation will just have to remain open for 2/4 years.
We have to make it as hard as possible to void the popular vote in any state and make lawmakers who do so pay a price.
Good points. (I interpret your comment to mean all the federal votes for the state would be null and void.)
Seems to me that our system fundamentally works and that the kind of fraud Trump claimed will continue to be rare and insignificant. However, Trump has lowered the bar when it comes to foul play. He has established a precedent at the presidential level that ultimately encourages people to try to scam the system. In other words, he has to some degree desensitized people to fraud. This will not open the flood gates of course, but this incremental movement is going in the wrong direction. One benign but obnoxious result is that I expect to see a lot more losing candidates engaging in tantrums.
The flip side is that Trump's con-job coupled with his various attempts to coerce others to make unethical / unconstitutional acts has triggered an alarm with good actions such as those described in this seed.
NPR had a segment with a CO county election official who stated that no matter how clearly, she explains procedures and processes, people don't believe her. She spoke about how they dodged a bullet when most of the 'Big Lie' supporters lost their primaries and about her hope that should any of them get elected, once they are educated on the system, they'll have faith in it.
I'm already signed up to be a poll worker and told them to send me where they think it will be most contentious.
Would be interesting to be a fly on that wall.
They were very 'encouraged' when I volunteered for 'combat duty'.
Do I have to read? Damnit...
" ... some on the left say they don't go far enough."
The lingering vestiges of the late 1960's meme that swept the West: "Be realistic, demand the impossible!"
Sandy started this thread with:
If election officials in several key states had cheated or lie and gave credence to Trump's claims, we might have had a different outcome. The Jan 6 Committee has investigated the threats made to election officials and workers in at least Arizona and Georgia, as Trump tried to get them to overturn the election results in their states.
Of which an example comes up with only 2 words, where a state was willing to spend millions to try and change their results.
Cyber Ninjas
Did you even look at the Cyber Ninjas results?
They confirmed the election results in case you missed it.
Also, there were still potentially 200 voter fraud cases. Which they admitted as well.
So no, Republicans didn't try and flip the election results; especially when the 3rd party they hired confirmed the election results.
This is the reason you saw push back against all of the Democrat imposed election laws for Covid from Republicans. Elections only work through transparency; and the 2020 elections were anythiung but.
And?
Why hire a company with no experience in the work to do an election audit, and moreover, one whose owner publicly supported one candidate over the other and promoted the Big Lie?
We know why. The "audit" wasn't about ensuring the election was fair. It was about discrediting it.
One would think that the 'potential' fraud cases from June 2021 would STILL be uncleared at this late date.