Legislation intended to prevent future attempts at overturning presidential elections passed in the House on Wednesday with support from only a small handful of Republicans.
The Presidential Election Reform Act, introduced by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) — two prominent members of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol building — received 229 votes in its favor.
The bill had the support of virtually every Democrat, although one member of the caucus didn’t vote. Only nine Republican members of the House voted for the bill, while 203 Republicans opposed it.
Prior to the vote, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) described the bill as a “kitchen table issue for families,” pointing out that everyone in the country depends on lawmakers to respect the outcome of elections.
“Denying the American people their fundamental freedom to choose their own leaders denies them their voice in the policies we pursue, and those policies can make tremendous difference in their everyday lives,” Pelosi said.
The bill proposes a number of changes to the Electoral Count Act, a 19th-century law that directs how Electoral College votes are certified in Congress. Some of the changes serve merely to strengthen what is already widely understood about the law in order to prevent lawmakers from exploiting ambiguities in the language.
The Presidential Election Reform Act, for example, would reiterate that the vice president’s role in the counting of votes is purely “ministerial.” In an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, Trump had instructed his then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes in states he lost to now-President Joe Biden. Under the bill, such actions would be explicitly illegal.
The bill also requires that a certain threshold of lawmakers be reached in each house of Congress before challenges to electors can be considered. Currently, only one member from each house is needed to mount such challenges; under Lofgren’s and Cheney’s proposal, one-third of each house’s members would be required.
The bill explicitly states that schemes to produce fake electors in order to disrupt or confuse the certification process — like that of Trump and his campaign — would be illegal. It would also require that “a single, accurate certificate from each state” be submitted for counting, and make it illegal for fake electors to submit additional phony certificates.
The bill will likely garner some bipartisan support in the Senate, though it’s unclear whether it can get the 10 Republican votes needed to defeat a likely filibuster. There is currently a competing piece of legislation being negotiated by members of the Senate that also seeks to update the Electoral Count Act.
Members of the team that negotiated that bill have expressed hesitancy to back the House-passed version.
“I much prefer our bill,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
Some provisions in the Senate bill, however, are weaker than those in the bill that was recently passed by the House. The Senate legislation has a lower threshold for how many lawmakers are needed to formally challenge states’ electors, requiring just one-fifth of legislators from both houses to do so.
That threshold was nearly reached during the last Electoral College certification — 147 Republicans voted against the certification of Biden’s win in several states in 2021, equal to more than one-fourth of the total number of lawmakers in Congress.
Though the number was smaller in the Senate, the one-fifth threshold that Collins and other senators are proposing was reached during the certification process in the House. However, the number was still below the one-third threshold suggested in Lofgren’s and Cheney’s bill.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.