The bill introduced by Cheney and Lofgren introduces new laws and strengthens existing ones to prevent individual government officials or members of Congress from undermining election results. “The Counting of Elections Act of 1887 should be amended to prevent further illegal attempts to subvert presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of presidential power,” the bill states. The House was not set to vote until Wednesday, but Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters that time for the legislation was up in the air because of “moving parts,” one of which was separate proposals on policing and public safety. which still existed. under negotiation and that could pass before Cheney and Lofgren’s bill. A source with the background added that if there is agreement on the policing legislation, it will go to the floor first and push a vote on the legislation on the Election Counting Act to Thursday. In their op-ed published Sunday in the Wall Street Journal, the pair wrote: “Our proposal aims to preserve the rule of law for all future presidential elections by ensuring that vested interests cannot steal from the people the guarantee that the our government derives its power from the consent of the governed”. It is unclear how many House Republicans will support the plan. Republican Whip Steve Scalise sent a message to members of the Republican conference on Tuesday against the bill. Once that bill passes the House, lawmakers must decide how to reconcile differences with the Senate’s proposed changes to the election-counting law submitted by a bipartisan group of senators in July. Cheney said in a telephone call Tuesday that there are “many similarities” to the Senate version of the bill, and she will continue to work “quickly” to reconcile the legislation. “I think, you know, we’re going to end up in a situation where we have legislation that has a lot of similarities that we can work with to make sure we get a good bill to the president’s office,” Cheney said. “We’re not cutting the compromise,” a House aide told CNN. “We think we’re raising the bar for what this bill should look like.” Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine and one of the main negotiators of the Senate legislation focused on reforming the vote-counting law, told CNN she hopes the Senate bill — not the bill introduced by Cheney and Lofgren — will be what ultimately passes Congress. “I greatly prefer our bill, which is the product of months of study, input from constitutional and election experts, and is a bill that has garnered broad bipartisan support,” Collins said. But Collins said the differences between the two bills are not insurmountable. “I believe we can resolve this and I hope we will. I would say our bill has broad support from constitutional scholars, election experts and members of the Senate,” Collins said, adding that the legislation is already watertight since it has the support of 10 Republican senators. Collins said the Senate Rules Committee will mark up the Senate bill next week. It remains to be seen whether the Senate will vote on the bill before the midterms or whether it will be an issue for the lame duck session. Cheney said Tuesday that she looks forward to seeing what amendments are added to the Senate version of the bill next week because she believes some of the differences could be resolved then. The Wyoming Republican said that bill will eventually become part of the House committee’s recommendations on Jan. 6, but more will be added when the committee releases its final report by the end of the year. “This is clearly a piece of our legislative recommendations,” Cheney said. “There will be others.”
Raising the threshold for Congress to oppose voters
One of the main differences between the two bills currently is the limit on which a member of Congress can appeal to a state’s voters. The House bill would require the support of one-third of each House to raise an objection and a majority vote to sustain that objection. It outlines five specific and narrow grounds for objection. The Senate version of the bill requires only one-fifth of support in each chamber and does not limit the grounds for objections. Currently, only one member from each department is required to file an objection and there are no restrictions on the type of objections that can be made. That’s why 147 Republicans in both houses were able to object when Congress met to certify the election on January 6, 2021, and they cited a variety of reasons for doing so.
Enforcing the state vote count and certification process
The proposed bill addresses any delays a state could make in counting and certifying its votes and creates language to enforce the election certification process. The legislation says no person “shall fail or willfully refuse to record, count or report any vote that is timely cast and otherwise valid under applicable state and federal law.” While the House bill gives states more time to certify an election, known as the safe harbor deadline, it proposes stricter guidelines for how a state’s vote can be challenged. Only the candidates for president and vice president listed on the ballot can challenge a state’s certification, which will be heard and determined by a three-judge district court panel and reviewable only by the Supreme Court. The legislation outlines a clear timeline for how the courts must expedite any election-related challenges. Currently, anyone can challenge a state’s certification in court. If a governor refuses to certify the election results and a court orders that they must be certified, the bill authorizes another state official to certify the results, thereby prohibiting governors from obstructing the election certification process. The new deadline for governors to certify their election and state electors to be chosen is Dec. 14, which has been pushed back from early December, and state electors must meet on Dec. 23, unless the date falls on a weekend. Once the state electors certify the election, the ballots are sent to Congress. The legislation also clearly defines what a state’s voter ballot represents and specifies that states can send only one ballot. Under the current bill, there is room for a state to send out competing voter lists in some cases. This language is intended to address what happened in 2020, where some states submitted alternate electors for Trump that were not the official electors submitted by the states. The fraudulent election scheme, it has emerged, is currently being investigated by the Department of Justice and has been a thread followed by the House Select Committee.
Clarification of the role of the vice-chairman during the joint session
The House bill seeks to reaffirm the Constitution and make clear that the vice president has no power to reject the state’s official electoral rolls, delay the counting of votes, or issue any procedural rulings. The Senate bill also has a version of this provision. “The 12th Amendment is simple; it just requires counting,” Cheney and Lofgren wrote. After the 2020 election, Trump tried to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject out-of-state electors, which Pence never did. The legislation proposed by Cheney and Lofgren also sets parameters for extending Election Day voting in very limited circumstances, including an act of terrorism or a natural disaster, which is not currently in the proposed Senate bill. This story has been updated with additional developments.
