The bill was the most significant legislative response so far to the unrest and the months-long campaign by Mr. Trump and his allies to nullify the 2020 presidential election, but it also underscored the lingering partisan divide on Jan. 6 and the continued dominance of the former president. . party. It cleared a divided House, passing by a vote of 229 to 203. All but nine Republicans opposed the measure, wary of angering Mr. Trump and unwilling to back legislation authored by Representative Liz Cheney, R-Wyoming, who heads the House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 and what led to that’s all . The partisan divide could complicate future negotiations with the Senate, which is moving forward with its own bipartisan version of the legislation that differs from the House bill in some important respects. Lawmakers now say they don’t expect final approval before Congress returns for a non-duck session after the Nov. 8 midterm elections. The legislation aims to update the law governing congressional recounts of state electoral votes, the last step under the Constitution to confirm the results of a presidential election and historically a largely ceremonial process. Democrats said the aftermath of the 2020 election — in which Mr. Trump and his allies’ efforts to reject legal electoral votes led to his supporters violently disrupting the congressional count on Jan. 6 — made it clear that the statute had to change. “These are common sense reforms that will preserve the rule of law for all elections moving forward,” said Representative Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and chairman of the Rules Committee. “Time is running out before the next election.” A key provision of the bill, also contained in the Senate proposal, would clarify that the role of the vice president, who by law presides over the counting of ballots in his capacity as Senate president, is strictly ministerial. After the 2020 election, Mr Trump and his advisers tried but failed to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to accept electoral votes from states where Trump had falsely claimed victory. The measure would also significantly raise the threshold for Congress to consider a challenge to a state’s electoral votes, requiring at least one-third of the House and Senate to sign on to such a challenge, up from the one member of each chamber now required. The Senate proposal has a lower threshold, requiring one-fifth of the House and Senate to agree. Members of both parties have voiced objections to recent elections, though none have been supported by majorities in the House and Senate. The House bill would also more narrowly define the grounds for objection to those with an established constitutional basis. “Ultimately, this bill is about protecting the will of the American voter, which is a principle that is beyond partisanship,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who leads the Administrative Committee and introduced the measure with Ms. Cheney. “The bottom line is, if you want to oppose the vote, you’d better have your colleagues and the Constitution on your side.” The passage of the bill comes as the Jan. 6 committee wraps up its work after a summer of high-profile hearings and prepares a lengthy report, which is expected to include recommendations on how to deal with threats to democracy posed by the insurgency and the Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election. Representative Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi and chairman of the committee, said the next and likely final hearing will be held on September 28. “We actually have footage of what happened that we haven’t used. we had important witness statements that we didn’t use,” Mr. Thompson said in an interview. “This is an opportunity to use some of that material.” The legislation was also a direct response to Mr. Trump’s efforts to orchestrate the filing of false voter IDs in states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. to prevent states from reversing course if they don’t like the outcome. And the bill would allow candidates to sue state officials if they don’t submit their voters or certified voters who don’t match election results. How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members can vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or providing money or fundraising for any political candidate or election cause. It would also determine the circumstances under which a federal judge could extend an election after a disaster and compel election officials to count ballots or certify elections if they refused to do so. Republicans said the legislation represented a renewed effort by Democrats to exert more federal control over elections that are usually the responsibility of state officials and courts. Representative Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, called it “another attempt to federalize elections at the expense of the states.” Other Republicans accused Democrats of rushing the legislation to the floor without proper committee review or Republican involvement. They also accused Democrats of using the bill to target Mr. Trump, presenting the legislation as an extension of the work of a special committee investigating Jan. 6, which most House Republicans denounce as a partisan exercise aimed at impeaching Mr. Mr. Trump on the Capitol attack. “This is nothing short of an attack on President Trump and the 2020 election, an attack on a man who has been out of office for almost two years,” said Representative Guy Resendahler, R-Pennsylvania. Lawmakers said the legislation’s close association with Ms. Cheney led House Republicans to abandon it in large numbers. Her scathing criticism of Mr Trump prompted Republicans to oust her from the party leadership post in May last year and she lost her re-election primary last month. But Ms. Cheney noted strong support for the measure from conservative lawmakers and analysts and called on Republicans to pass it. “If your goal is to prevent future attempts to steal an election, I would respectfully ask conservatives to support this bill,” he said on the floor of the House. “If your goal is to leave the door open for election theft in the future, you might decide not to support this or any other bill to address the vote count law.” Leaders of the bipartisan group behind the Senate bill, which was released in July, were surprised by the House’s sudden action on the legislation just days after it was introduced and after months with few details on how the House was moving forward. Supporters of the Senate bill said the House’s approach could lead to more election lawsuits, a prospect that could increase Republican opposition. However, they remained optimistic that the accounts could be reconciled. “We can work together to try to bridge the significant differences,” said Sen. Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and one of the lead authors of the Senate bill. “But it would have been better if we had been consulted before the House sponsors decided to withdraw their bill.” The Senate Rules Committee is scheduled to consider this chamber’s version next week. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota and the committee’s chairwoman, is preparing a new version that incorporates changes that election experts and other lawmakers are seeking in hopes of increasing its chances of passage. The legislation so far has at least 10 Republican cosponsors, meaning it could overcome a GOP fissure if all Democrats supported it. Despite the differences, supporters of the legislation said it should become law. “Failure is not an option,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, a member of the Democratic leadership and the Jan. 6 panel. “We need to put a piece of reform in the office of the president. We must protect democracy.” Luke Broadwater contributed reporting.
