Comment on this story
Comment
A bipartisan group of 16 senators on Wednesday passed legislation that would clarify an 1887 law that President Donald Trump and his allies tried to use as part of their attempt to revoke the results of the 2020 election.
The legislation, which comes after months of negotiations, would seek to more clearly define the role of states, presidential voters and the vice president in a presidential election in an effort to avoid the events of January 6, 2021 in the future.
Although senators said the work of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol did not affect its negotiations or affect the timing, the legislation was published as the committee has presented evidence showing how Trump and his allies tried to exploit the vagueness of nineteenth-century law, the Electoral Count Act.
Trump pressured Vice President Mike Pence to reject votes for Joe Biden from certain states recognizing informal slates of voters for Trump, but Pence disagreed that he had the legal authority to do so and worked for certify Biden as the winner of the election.
For detailed information and clear policy reviews that are sent to your inbox each morning, sign up for The Early 202.
The proposal, led by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin III (DW.Va.), would also make it difficult for Congress to raise an objection to state results in a presidential election. Nineteenth-century law allows a member of the House and a senator to raise an objection. The proposal raises the threshold for objection to one-fifth of the House and Senate.
It also clarifies how a presidential candidate can raise concerns about a state’s election by creating a three-judge tribunal with a fast track to the Supreme Court, an issue on which senators struggled to reach an agreement.
Try to clarify the presidential transition
In an independent law, senators try to deter violence against election workers by doubling fines for people who intimidate or threaten election workers. It also tries to clarify how the postal service handles election mail.
To the displeasure of many on the left, senators did not delve into issues such as voter access, an issue that has become partisan. Senate Democrats tried to pass expansive changes to this Congress’s voting rules that they said were necessary to combat voting restrictions in GOP-controlled states. But his efforts were thwarted first by the Republican opposition and then earlier this year by Senators Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) And Manchin, who opposed changing the Senate obstruction rule to pass. the voting package, frustrating Democrats and many election watchers.
“We have developed legislation that sets clear guidelines for our system of certification and counting of electoral votes for the president and vice president,” the bipartisan group of senators said in a statement. “We urge our colleagues on both sides to support these simple, common-sense reforms.”
All the ways Trump tried to cancel the election, and how it could happen again
The proposal consolidates the notion that state voters should represent the winner of the popular vote by passing a portion of an 1845 law that says a state legislature can override the state popular vote by declaring a indefinite “failed choice”. The new proposal, however, says that a The state can only move the day of the presidential election in case of “extraordinary and catastrophic” circumstances.
A state can appoint only one set of presidential voters and only the governor — or an official designated in the state constitution or laws — could present the voters to Congress.
After the 2020 election, groups of rogue voters who support Trump in several states tried to present their list to Congress to be counted instead of the legitimate voters won by Biden.
The possibilities of the bill to pass the Senate are unclear. It would need the support of 10 Republicans and eight were part of the bipartisan negotiating group.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (DN.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Have given negotiators a long strap, a signal the legislation is likely to get. the support of the leaders of both parties. Collins said he has been in contact with Schumer and McConnell on the bill.
McConnell told reporters Tuesday that the Electoral Count Act “needs to be fixed,” but did not say whether he would approve the new plan.
In addition to Collins and Manchin, members of the negotiating group include Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Jeanne Shaheen (DN.H.), Lisa. Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), Thom Tillis (RN.C.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Shelley Moore Capito (RW.Va.), Ben Cardin (D . -Md.), Todd C. Young (R-Ind.), Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Lindsey O. Graham (RS. C) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).
Trump’s election escalated tensions and put the U.S. on track until Jan. 6, according to the panel
Election experts agree that the current law is outdated and confusing.
“The upcoming presidential election could be one of the most controversial in history, and should be decided by voters, not partisan politicians,” Adav Noti, vice president of the Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement. “While there is much more work to be done to protect elections and voters at the state and federal levels, this bill offers critical safeguards for the results of the presidential election.”
Trump’s refusal to give in and the effort to nullify the election results were unique in U.S. history and strained the system to ensure a peaceful transfer of power.
“We saw remarkable political courage on the part of state officials, including governors and secretaries of state, last time, and I hope we see it again, but we certainly can’t count on that,” said Matthew Seligman, a fellow. Yale Law School. who has studied the shortcomings of the Electoral Count Act. “So if Congress doesn’t pass this law, I’m terrified.”
But some election observers, especially on the left, said that while addressing the ECA is important, it does not address the broad reforms that are needed.
“Any text that comes out should not be seen as any kind of comprehensive solution to the problems of democracy,” said Daniel I. Weiner, director of elections and government at the Brennan Center for Justice. “It should be the first step in the process where the rest of Congress should intervene.”