Last week, the Democratic majority for the Committee on House Administration released the first concrete step towards reforming the Electoral Count Act, with a comprehensive report outlining the ECA’s history, the case for reform, and a list of recommendations. Interest is especially high now that the Democratic push for broader and more controversial election and voting bills appears to have met its final fate in the Senate. A bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Susan Collins (R‑ME) has been meeting to discuss the way forward on the ECA.
The Committee on House Administration’s staff report, commissioned by committee chair Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D‑CA), is an excellent starting point for the discussion. It is thoroughly researched, thoughtful in its analysis, and its recommendations are largely aligned with our own suggestions about what ECA reform should look like.
Major points of agreement include raising the threshold for making an objection, which forces Congress to divide back into their separate chambers for two hours of debate and a vote. Currently, that process can be triggered so long as one member from each chamber requests it, an invitation for ill-founded grandstanding. The committee suggests one third of each house, which might be a bit high, but the exact number is less important than making sure an objection has some real and significant level of support before it can cause a delay in the proceedings.
The other big idea is to create an exhaustive list of valid grounds for objections. This builds on the principle that Congress has a limited role when canvassing the results of the Electoral College and should not sit in judgment of the underlying popular elections in each state. Such a provision would make clear that outside of a narrow list of fairly technical reasons, any other grounds for objection would be out of order. Limiting the grounds for objections is the most important reform idea to prevent Congress from second-guessing election results and to shut down the escalating tit-for-tat of baseless objections over matters far beyond Congress’s proper authority.
The report also recommends moving the date that the electors meet to cast their votes later in the calendar, from mid-December to perhaps late December or early January. By giving states more time to certify their list of electors, this change would allow the courts more time to resolve any post-election legal issues. Perhaps just as importantly, granting the courts more time would reduce the appearance that post-election litigation is an overly-rushed and imprecise process, creating more confidence in the final results.
Read the rest of this post →