The vote was 229-203. Nine Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the measure, including Cheney, Adam Kinsinger of Illinois, Peter Major of Michigan, Tom Rice of South Carolina, Washington’s Jamie Herrera Boitler, John Carter of New York, Fred Upton of Michigan, Chris Jacobs of New York and Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio.
Cheney and Lofgren’s bill introduced new laws and strengthened existing ones to prevent individual state officials or members of Congress from undermining election results.
“The Election Counting Act of 1887 shall be amended to prevent other unlawful future efforts to overturn presidential elections and to ensure a future peaceful transfer of presidential power,” the bill reads.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters earlier Wednesday that the timing of the legislation has yet to be determined because “parts,” one of which is a separate proposal on policing and public safety, are still being negotiated and could come under Cheney and Lofgren’s bill ahead of schedule. Hoyer later said the Cheney and Lofgren bills would be voted on Wednesday.
“Our proposal aims to uphold the rule of law for all future presidential elections by ensuring that selfish politicians cannot steal our government’s assurances from the people,” the pair wrote in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal on Sunday. power comes from the consent of the governed.”
Cheney said on a conference call on Tuesday that there are “many similarities” to the Senate version of the bill and that she will continue to work “rapidly” to coordinate the legislation.
“I think, you know, we’re going to end up in a situation where our legislation has a lot of similarities that we can work with to make sure we get a good deal on the president’s desk,” Cheney said. Act.”
“We’re not going to break the compromise,” a House aide told CNN. “We think we’re raising the bottom line on what this bill looks like.”
“I prefer our bill, which is the product of months of research, constitutional and election experts, and a bill that has broad bipartisan support,” Collins said.
Still, Collins said the differences between the two bills are not insurmountable.
Collins said the Senate Rules Committee will flag 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 become an issue in the lame-duck session.
Cheney said Tuesday that she looks forward to seeing what amendments are added to next week’s Senate version of the bill, because she believes some differences can be resolved by then.
The Wyoming Republican said the bill would eventually form part of the House committee’s recommendations on Jan. 6, but others will be added when the panel releases its final report at the end of the year.
“This is clearly part of our legislative proposal,” Cheney said. “There will be others.”
Raising the bar for congressional opposition voters
One of the main differences between the two bills right now is the threshold at which members of Congress can raise objections to voters in a state. The House bill would require the support of one-third of each chamber to raise an objection, and a majority to support that objection. It outlines five specific and narrow grounds for objection. The Senate version of the bill requires only one-fifth of each chamber’s support and does not limit grounds for opposition.
Currently, only one member per House is required to object, and there are no restrictions on the types of objections that can be raised. That’s why 147 Republicans in both chambers were able to object when Congress meets on January 6, 2021, to certify the election, citing various reasons for doing so.
Execute state vote counting and certification procedures
The proposed bill addresses any potential delays a state may cause in counting and certifying its votes and creates language to enforce the election certification process.
The legislation states that no person “willfully fail to record, count or report any vote that is timely and valid under applicable state and federal law.”
While the House bill gives states more time to certify the election, the so-called safe harbor period, it proposes stricter guidelines on how to challenge state votes.
Only the presidential and vice presidential candidates listed on the ballot can challenge the state’s certification, which will be heard and decided by a three-judge panel in the district court and reviewed only by the Supreme Court. The legislation outlines a clear timeline for how courts need to expedite any election-related challenges. Currently, anyone can challenge the state’s certification in court.
If the governor refuses to certify election results that a court orders must be certified, the bill would authorize another state official to certify the results, barring the governor from obstructing the election certification process.
The new deadline for governors to certify their elections and elected state electors is Dec. 14, postponed from early December, and state electors must meet on Dec. 23 unless that date falls on a weekend. Once the state electors certify the election, the electoral list is sent to Congress.
The legislation also clearly defines a state’s voter list and clarifies that states can only send one list. Under the current bill, states have room to send out competing voter rolls under certain circumstances.
This language is intended to address what happened in 2020 where the alternate electors submitted by some states for Trump were not the official electors submitted by the states. As we all know, the fake electoral scheme is currently being investigated by the Department of Justice and has become a trail for a House select committee to follow up.
Clarify the responsibilities of the vice chair during joint meetings
The House bill seeks to reaffirm the Constitution and make clear that the vice president has no authority to refuse official state electoral rolls, delay the counting of votes or issue any procedural rulings. The Senate bill also has a version of the clause.
“The 12th Amendment is simple; it just requires calculation,” Cheney and Lofgren wrote.
The legislation proposed by Cheney and Lofgren also sets parameters for extending Election Day voting in very limited circumstances, including acts of terrorism or natural disasters that are not currently present in the bill proposed by the Senate.
This story and title have been updated with more developments.