Fortunately, two members of the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) presented their own improved version on Monday, as described in an article opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal. Their proposal makes a number of key changes to the law, which defines the certification of electoral votes. For example:
He confirms that the vice president has only a ceremonial role. It clarifies that members of Congress can object to electoral votes only if they concern “the express constitutional requirements for the eligibility of candidates and electors and the express requirements of the 12th Amendment for electoral voting.” Interestingly, the proposal makes clear that an objection may be that the candidate is ineligible under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies from federal office anyone who “engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the same, or gave aid or consolation to his enemies.” In other words, it would serve as a trip wire to impeach former President Donald Trump on the grounds that he incited an “insurrection.” Raises the threshold for Congress to vote on an objection from a lawmaker in each chamber to one-third of each division.
The proposal also avoids some of the confusing language included in the Senate proposal regarding state certification. The House version is a useful and accurate description of the correct procedure: Governors must transmit legal election results to Congress. If they fail to fulfill that duty or another official blocks the transmission of legal results, presidential candidates should be able to sue in federal court to ensure that Congress receives the state’s legal certificate. These lawsuits would occur before Congress counts the electoral votes and should ensure, in all cases where a candidate has a majority of the electoral votes, that the January 6th Congressional process is purely ministerial. Barring the kind of maneuvers devised by Trump’s lawyer, John Eastman, the proposal makes clear that “the rules governing elections cannot be changed after the election has taken place.” In short, state legislatures cannot upset voter choice. Follow Jennifer Rubin’s viewsFollow Add And in an inspired piece of legislation, the revised EAC would make it clear that it is a violation of the Constitution to refuse to count and certify ballots according to the rules in place on Election Day. A candidate can go to federal court to seek an injunction against state officials who refuse to do so. An appeal can then be made directly to the Supreme Court. (A treble damages provision is also included in an effort to prevent frivolous litigation.) Finally, the proposal also clarifies the existing ECA and refines the Senate plan by clarifying that the law’s “failed election” provision applies only to “a genuine catastrophic event affecting enough ballots to affect the outcome of the state’s election.” Norman Eisen, a Brookings scholar who testified before the Senate Rules Committee on the Senate proposal, tells me, “The bipartisan House proposal represents another step toward reaching a bipartisan deal.” Approves extending the House period to resolve legal disputes over a state’s election result from six to nine days. It also avoids language included in the Senate version that characterized a governor’s certification of a state’s results as “decisive,” reducing “the risk of a rogue governor,” Eisen says. The bill will come to Parliament this week. If it passes (as is likely on a near-partisan vote), it will go to the Senate. The Senate Rules Committee, which received testimony pointing out the flaws in the original Senate proposal, will next consider the House version in the normal legislative resumption process. In other words, we seem to be moving towards the best possible version of ECA reform. We’ll soon find out if there are 10 Republicans who genuinely want to block future coup attempts by anti-Democrat candidates and their sleazy lawyers. Now is the time to create a major barrier to prevent a repeat of January 6th. With Democratic majorities in the House and Senate at risk, such reform cannot wait until the midterm elections.
