Law Election Reform Debate: ECA Reform signed into Law 12/30/22

[Lead]

Final Post
This thread began with Biden's term and Democrat's proposed election reform changes. It ultimately turned into the ECA reform provisions that are now law. I'm ending this thread on that note and if any other election reform debate begins in the DC that seem significant, I'll consider a new chapter/ thread.

Biden signed the omnibus which included the ECA reform provisions into law 12/30. There now can be no concern with the new term whether this would be swept under the rug. With the bill, we are unlikely to see many successful attempts to hold up the electoral count process. The VP's role is further clarified and the threshold between the House and Senate is far higher.

Biden signs $1.7 trillion spending bill, avoiding a partial government shutdown

One thing I am left wondering about is will the higher threshold make more Senators routinely feel comfortable protesting the process knowing they don't have the votes to have it go any further. As Ben Sasse would say, allowing performance "jackassery" by Senator's looking to get TV spots or further their name with the base. Time will tell on that but the hope at least would be there be less hold ups on electoral votes being counted when there isn't any clear evidence of material fraud.



Updated Post 11/30/22
Term coming to a close and it looks like the way the electoral count act reform bill will go through the omnibus bill to save floor time. Makes sense if it really is popular enough in the senate and won’t be a cause for protest outside of the other items in the omnibus. I’m thinking this move might possibly be a way to strong arm the house into using the senates version of the bill. House already voted for theirs and it was somewhat different from the senate version so if there’s a spending cliff, put it in that bill which forces the house to also upvote it.

Manchin and Klobuchar: Omnibus likely place for electoral count overhaul
Roll Call

Legislation to overhaul how Congress counts presidential electoral votes should hop on the must-pass spending omnibus on its way out of the Senate, Sens. Joe Manchin III and Amy Klobuchar said Wednesday.

Speaking at a National Council on Election Integrity event, Manchin said the Electoral Count Reform Act was “ready.”

“I would think the omnibus bill is the appropriate place to put it,” the West Virginia Democrat said.

Speaking later, Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee, said the National Defense Authorization Act was another option, but “the omnibus is looking more and more promising.”

Updated Post 11/19/22
So here we are. About less than two months in the Senate to get an ECA reform bill passed and make sure it either aligns with the House passed version or get revised and another vote. Though I think this could linger into 2023, I think there is some danger in McCarthy turning against it, especially the House version that had passed and nothing going through. Though there are some key disagreements with the house and senate, they both seem to agree something should be passed before the end of the term.

Now That Trump Is Running, Get Electoral Count Act Reform Done
National Review

Yesterday, for the third time, Donald Trump announced he is running for president. His reascension to the highest office in the land is certainly within the realm of possibility. Given his past attempt to overturn election results and its disastrous fallout, it’s high time for Congress to pass the bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA).

The incoming Republican majority will serve as an indispensable check on President Biden’s left-wing agenda. Unfortunately, because of the apparent prevalence of the view among the GOP base that the 2020 election was stolen, the House Republican Conference is unlikely to take up the cause of reforming the Electoral Count Act, which was the rickety product of the disputed 1876 presidential election. It’s urgent for the lame-duck 117th Congress to amend it now, because the 118th Congress, which will certify the results of the 2024 presidential election, likely won’t have the inclination to do so.

Do you think this will get through before next congress? Is it dead if it doesn’t before?

Updated Post 9/29/22
So the Senate version of ECA reform pass the Senate Rules Committee 14-1 with Cruz being the lone no vote. It was mentioned earlier but he’s trying to play an angle that he’d like the reform to be done a different way. I tend to think he is just part of the problem this even was necessary so he doesn’t want to be apart of the solution now.

Additionally, now that it’s been finalized, McConnell has come out in support for the bill as well. This likely signals this will be well north of the 60 votes that were originally on board here. Obviously there will be some no votes, likely from those who were considering contesting state electoral votes on Jan 6. So Cruz, and guys like Hawley who said he didn’t see a need to update such an old law (again, you are literally the reason for the update, Hawley). We did see on of those senators who wanted to decertify PA and AZ vote yes for this bill in the committee vote though so that seems even more comforting. I’m thinking around 80-20 on the Senate vote. Hopefully more.

Vote is now expected after midterms, like many other high profile bills at this point.


Senate's Electoral Count Act reform heads for broad bipartisan vote
Axios


Updated Post 9/20/22
Another House bill was released which does conflict with the current Senate version in a few ways. Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) released a bill which sets the contesting threshold to a third of the house and senate (rather than a fifth) and also had different additional provisions like allowing candidates to sue states if they believe there was election fraud, with the caveat the candidate would receive high fines for frivolous lawsuits. It also clarified when a state can extend their voting in the event of something like a power outage, natural disaster or terrorist attack. Lastly, the bill puts some of the finding from the Jan 6 hearings in as this is something both Cheney and Lofgren want highlighted. It seems unlikely to me Pelosi would put this version through the House vote as the Senates requires more consensus to get through. I don’t think it risks the chances either way but another piece to this.

House and Senate split over how to prevent the next Jan. 6
Politico


Updated Post 9/18/22
Another development. House reps Fred Upton and (MI-R) and Josh Gottheimer (NJ-D) drafted a mirrored house bill called the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act. It could very well be a possibility the house passes their version first with how backed up congress is.

Updated Post 9/14/22
Update on another bill or bills being watched closely to see if we will get a vote before midterm elections. A recess is expected in October for senators to campaign so September has limited time and different mandatory measures like the debt ceiling and spending bills have to be looked at too.

Anyways, the group headed up by Collins and Manchin have two proposed bills coming through. One (closer related to this thread) to the reform of the electoral count act rules which would clarify the VPs ceremonial role in counting the votes as well as raising the threshold for challenging a states electors (currently is just one house rep and one senator). This bill looks to have 60 votes at least if it makes it to the floor. However, it is still getting some sign off from a committee with Klobuchar and Cornyn before possibly getting to a floor vote. The other bill mainly relates to election official security and electronic records which might not have 60 votes yet (Graham and Sasse are on board for the first but not the second).

Anyways, it seems like this will eventually be wrapped up. Just a matter of does it get to the floor and if it doesn’t before midterms, would it still get floor time after the elections or after a new term begins?


Senate grapples with election reform legislation as time runs short to act
NBC

Bipartisan legislation aimed at preventing attempts to steal elections and another attack on the Capitol is sitting on the shelf, and as the clock ticks on the current Democratic-controlled Congress it remains unclear when a vote will take place, or what the proposals will ultimately look like.

“It’s something we’d like to get done. And we’re going to try to figure out the best way to get it done,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters this week.

Updated post 7/2022
It’s happening gif

Looks as if the senate is first out the gate with a bill for electoral count act reform. This is aimed at updating the language related to the electoral vote count process that we saw on Jan 6, making it clearer the VPs role in the process is symbolic only (something Trump was attempting to push that it wasn’t and his VP could overturn the election for him) and raise the limits on when votes can be contested. In the past, it’s simply required one house member and one senator. I was a bit concerned on how slow this was moving and if there really was a genuine interest in updating before midterms but the release of the senate version is a good sign.



Senators announce bipartisan bills to stop candidates from stealing elections
NBC

After months of negotiating, a group of senators announced two proposals Wednesday designed to close gaps in federal law and prevent future candidates from stealing elections.

The measures — called the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act and the Enhanced Election Security and Protection Act — are led by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.





The bills seek to close loopholes in election law that then-President Donald Trump and his allies tried to exploit to keep him in power despite his defeat in the 2020 election. The first bill would clarify the vice president's role in counting Electoral College votes, raise the bar for members of Congress to object, and try to prevent fake slates of electors from interfering in the process. The second is aimed at protecting election workers

 

[Lead]

Updated post 6/20/22
A framework is developing for ECA reform. The proposal would change the limit of contesting electoral votes currently at one house rep and one senator to at least 20% of each chamber. Also would clarify the VPs role in simply announcing the count and it being ceremonial. Collins and Machin are heading up the talks related to this legislation.

There's talks this could not reach a vote til after the midterms because of different candidates concerned how it reflects on them. Democrats worried it looks like caving on not passing something more expansive in election reform and republicans worried it is a measure to attack Trump.

Bipartisan senators reach a general agreement on updating Electoral Count Act
CBS

A bipartisan group of senators working to reform the Electoral Count Act has reached a general agreement and is working on legislative text during this work period, which ends June 24, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

The group met on Wednesday night to discuss changes to the law, which governs the way Congress counts and certifies votes from the Electoral College after each presidential election.

"We had an excellent meeting last night where we resolved almost all of the issues," Republican Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine, said Thursday.

Meanwhile, in the House, there's deliberation on what the Jan 6 committee's legislative recommendations will be. With it being mainly a democrat led committee, there's push for expansive recommendations high as getting rid of the electoral college. However, GOP members like Cheney want to keep the focus primarily on minor reforms like ECA which the hearings have mainly revolved around. Too early to say where it will land but regardless, other House committees are working on this simultaneously and it's possible the Senate bill will once again lead the way on the framework with the House merely confirming what is drafted.


Scoop: Jan. 6 committee's private divide
Axios

The House's Jan. 6 committee has split behind the scenes over what actions to take after the public hearings: Some members want big changes on voting rights — and even to abolish the Electoral College — while others are resisting proposals to overhaul the U.S. election system, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Televised hearings begin Thursday night. Committee members are in

lockstep about capturing Americans' attention by unfurling a mountain of evidence connecting former President Trump and those close to him with the attack on the Capitol.

• But the committee's legacy depends in large part on what reforms it pursues after those hearings to prevent another Jan. 6 from happening — and that's where the united front breaks down.

The big picture: Disagreements arise whenever proposals are raised such as abolishing the Electoral College, vastly expanding voting rights like same-day registration or tightening the Insurrection Act to make it harder for a president to deploy the military domestically for use on civilians.

Updated post 1/20/22
So now that everyone is on record about the two democrat bills that were combined and failed to pass, this is going to mark whether the senate moves on to something else like BBB or tries to find a more bipartisan bill to get through the senate. Manchin and Collins are now drafting their own bill that covers Electoral count act reform and more protections for poll workers who are attacked or threatened. This already was happening a couple weeks back but they might put something out now that this recent vote happened. Manchin actually has a different bill with Klobuchar that was somewhat of a more tame For the People Act so he might come out co-sponsoring more than one.


Manchin, Collins leading talks on overhauling election law, protecting election officials
The Hill

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) said on Thursday that they are pushing forward with their effort to reform an 1887 election law after a more sweeping Democratic effort fell short this week.

Manchin and Collins - meeting together with a crowd of reporters in the Senate basement - said that a bipartisan group of senators is discussing overhauling the Electoral Count Act, as well additional protections for election workers including beefing up penalties for threatening poll workers.

Senate Dems' filibuster ambitions fall short
Politico

Senate Democrats failed in a Wednesday night bid to weaken the filibuster to pass elections and voting reform thanks to opposition from centrists Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

In a 48-52 vote, the Senate rejected an effort to reinstate what's known as the "talking filibuster" that would have specifically allowed the elections legislation to pass by a simple majority vote, after a lengthy debate. Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sinema (D-Ariz.) joined all 50 Senate Republicans to block the change.

Updated post 1/9/22
Some time now to summarize another of the four bills currently in play. The John Lewis Bill was cover earlier here

HR 1/ S1(For the People Act)
This passed in the houses last year and is one the main bills Senate Dems have been proposing to bypass the filibuster over
What’s in it?

Voting rights

• Creates new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Requires chief state election officials to automatically register eligible unregistered citizens.
• Requires each state to put online options for voter registration, correction, cancellation, or designating party affiliation.
• Requires at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections; early voting sites would be open for at least 10 hours per day. The bill also prohibits states from restricting a person’s ability to vote by mail, and requires states to prepay postage on return envelopes for mail-in voting.
• Establish independent redistricting commissions in states as a way to draw new congressional districts and end partisan gerrymandering in federal elections.
• Prohibits voter roll purging and bans the use of non-forwardable mail being used as a way to remove voters from rolls.
• Restores voting rights to people convicted of felonies who have completed their sentences; however, the bill doesn’t restore rights to felons currently serving sentences in a correctional facility.

Campaign finance

• • Establishes public financing of campaigns, powered by small donations. This has long been Sarbanes’s vision: The federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over. The maximum small donation that could be matched would be capped at $200. This program isn’t funded by taxpayer dollars; instead, the money would come from adding a 4.75 percent fee on criminal and civil fines, fees, penalties, or settlements with banks and corporations that commit corporate malfeasance (think Wells Fargo).
  • Supports a constitutional amendment to end Citizens United.
  • Passes the DISCLOSE Act, pushed by Rep. David Cicilline and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, both Democrats from Rhode Island. This would require super PACs and “dark money” political organizations to make their donors public.
  • Passes the Honest Ads Act, championed by Sens. Klobuchar and Mark Warner (VA), which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money for political ads on their platforms and share how much money was spent. (A Facebook spokesman told Vox the company has publicly supported Honest Ads Act since 2018).
  • Discloses any political spending by government contractors and slows the flow of foreign money into the elections by targeting shell companies.
  • Restructures the Federal Election Commission to have five commissioners instead of six, in order to break political gridlock at the organization.
  • Prohibits any coordination between candidates and super PACs.

Ethics

• • Requires the president and vice president to disclose 10 years of his or her tax returns. Candidates for president and vice president must also do the same.
  • Stops members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment or discrimination cases.
  • Gives the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and implement stricter lobbying registration requirements. These include more oversight of foreign agents by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
  • Creates a new ethics code for the US Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.

This is likely the most extensive of the four bills, overhauling/ changing a lot from what we currently have. This bill, like others, carries more federal oversight in state elections which is one of the main points of opposition coming from the right. The early voting requirement for states (15 days) looks to be lower than what most states who have it already to do. It would impact mainly the states that do not have early voting at all, which is a handful looking at the list. Additionally, the mail in option without reason would change many states current policies. Lastly an attempt to address redistricting/ gerrymandering is an interesting idea but something many would be hesitant on the details as that would be the biggest change.
Some new disclosures and ethics regulations. One that stands out is directed at the Supreme Court which has become its own ordeal that might be worthy of its own thread. There’s a tension between SCOTUS and congress in who handles the ethics of federal court judges and also whether congress can mandate any ethics rules for the highest court justices.
The public donation matching is also something I wonder about due to the “small donation”. Recently, it’s become popular with candidates to bring about how low the average donation is. However, there hasn’t been enough disclosures in campaign donations to track whether multiple small donations are coming from the same person. In other words, a rich donor could donate 10 a bunch of times and the statistic would look like it’s a grassroots campaign when nothing really is different. I’d like to believe they’d tighten up disclosures if they really planned on matching 6 to 1.
Lastly, I don’t see it in the Vox summary but the bill would allow any person to bypass presenting an ID to vote by signing off that they are who they claim they are. You’ll see some outlets say the bill doesn’t outlaw voter ID but this provision essentially makes a workaround so voter ID could be bypassed in any state
Bill link
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1/BILLS-117hr1ih.pdf

 

[Lead]

Updated Post 1/7/22
So here we go also with the lines being drawn. Despite both parties now showing support for reforming the Electoral Count Act, Schumer was not pleased with the idea and criticized it didn't go far enough in reform. Now it's practical if they really were going to bypass the filibuster to be keeping priority on the three bills they have present and try to get consensus with their party to try to get them through but ultimately, if don't have that consensus (which it looks like they don't), it is reckless to not even attempt to work on getting this passed. I'll hold too much criticism at this point as I think Schumer's been doing an okay job as Majority Leader but if the year passes and there isn't any work on the electoral count act, that tells me Democrats are far less worried about there being true threats to democracy in the transition of one administration to another. I mean, the House had A LOT of republicans who were going forward with that, maybe 10 senators (which is shameful by Senate standards), and tons of pressure on the sitting VP Pence to just throw out certain state results.

Schumer: McConnell floating Electoral Count Act reforms 'unacceptably insufficient,' 'offensive'
The Hill

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Thursday rejected talk of reforming the Electoral Count Act, after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) floated making changes to the 1887 law.

Schumer, speaking from the Senate, said making changes to the law, which details how Congress counts the Electoral College vote, doesn't "deal with the problem" and would be "doing the bare minimum."

"Let me take this opportunity to make clear that plan, the McConnell plan that's what it is, is ... unacceptably insufficient and even offensive," Schumer said.

Schumer's comments come after McConnell floated on Wednesday that making changes to the Electoral Count Act was "worth discussing."

McConnell's comments came as Democrats are pursuing broader election and voting legislation, which has been blocked previously by Republicans, as GOP-led states pursue new voting laws after the 2020 election.

"Some score-keeping matters little if the game is rigged," Schumer said.

Original Post 1/5/22
So going into 2022, Democrats have seen BBB either dead or indefinitely stalled as Manchin has stated he’s out of negotiations. This has left Schumer and others to redirect the narrative to election reform along with some of their proposed bills like HR 1, John Lewis Voting Rights Act (house bill) or the Freedom to Vote Act (Klobuchar/ Manchin). These are unlikely to pass as they have GOP opposition and Manchin is saying he’d want a bipartisan election reform bill to go through. Something like HR 1 has no chance of that as it essentially ends state voter ID laws by creating a workaround that states must allow.

With this all set, there’s now been a recent push from conservatives for election reform legislation focused around reforming the Electoral Count Act, which caused the concern around Jan 6 and the formalizing of the president elect by Congress and the current (but departing) Vice President.

Overturning the Next Election by WSJ Editorial Board

Democrats, Voting Rights Are Not the Problem by Yuval Levin / New York Times Opinion

Republicans Should Support Electoral Count Act Reform by Andy Craig at The Cato Institute

Republicans Should Help Reform the Electoral Count Act by the National Review Editors

You get the point. With all that, it appears McConnell is open to the idea of a bill for this. In 2021, any election reform bill looked to be off the table so this might signal a change.

I’ll try to find some time to distinguish the details of each bill in the future here but thought this was a good starting point for the election reform debate that appears to be taking the spotlight early this year in the senate. What does the WR think here, do you expect any legislation to pass at all? If so, what bill? If you want something to pass, what specific measures do you want to see in that bill?

 

[Deorum]

These are unlikely to pass as they have GOP opposition and Manchin is saying he’d want a bipartisan election reform bill to go through. Something like HR 1 has no chance of that as it essentially ends state voter ID laws by creating a workaround that states must allow.

And quite rightly, that is ridiculous.

 

[Papi Chulo]

We need to get rid of the fraud.

-vote on one day again, not month long voting
-show your identification when you vote
-no machines hooked up to the internet or that can be hacked

 

[nostradumbass]

Seems pretty damn simple. Don't have millions of ballots floating around that nobody even requested, don't ballot harvest and send partisan operatives to collect a bunch of hand selected ballots, states should set and actually follow their own election laws, any vote not cast in person should be counted when it's received before election day so in person election day votes are the last ones counted and we actually have a winner on election day. None of this shit where the number they need to come up with is announced first and then get several days to magically stumble upon a bunch of ballots in warehouses, in trunks of cars, under a desk in some back office to the exact number to flip the entire state in a single corrupt county.

 

[Lead]

We need to get rid of the fraud.

-vote on one day again, not month long voting
-show your identification when you vote
-no machines hooked up to the internet or that can be hacked

A few years back, we had a poll where most people were good with a voter holiday in return for voter ID. Would you pass a bill for a holiday in return for it being a single day?

 

[jeremyemilio]

And quite rightly, that is ridiculous.

Gawd, Deorum... off topic but... what in holy hell is up with that quote sig? That was directed at you?

There's something very seriously wrong with people in here.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

A few years back, we had a poll where most people were good with a voter holiday in return for voter ID. Would you pass a bill for a holiday in return for it being a single day?

Absolutely.

 

[MicroBrew]

We need to get rid of the fraud.

-vote on one day again, not month long voting
-show your identification when you vote
-no machines hooked up to the internet or that can be hacked

Why would you want to make it hard for people to vote, unless you want to deliberately restrict the ability of people to vote. For a country with over 330 million people, of which 250 million are of voting age, having just 1 day is a deliberate attempt to suppress the vote.

There was no widespread voter fraud. Just repeating a lie often enough does not make it true.

 

[Confucamus]

Why would you want to make it hard for people to vote, unless you want to deliberately restrict the ability of people to vote. For a country with over 330 million people, of which 250 million are of voting age, having just 1 day is a deliberate attempt to suppress the vote.

There was no widespread voter fraud. Just repeating a lie often enough does not make it true.

Let's say there wasn't voter fraud and everyone agrees. What would be wrong with securing our elections even further? There will always be nefarious efforts to interfere with our elections and we need to stay ahead of them. We can't really sit around with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If there are potential exploitations of the system, do something now. We shouldn't have to wait for fraud to occur to begin trying to secure the election process.

 

[MicroBrew]

Let's say there wasn't voter fraud and everyone agrees. What would be wrong with securing our elections even further? There will always be nefarious efforts to interfere with our elections and we need to stay ahead of them. We can't really sit around with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If there are potential exploitations of the system, do something now. We shouldn't have to wait for fraud to occur to begin trying to secure the election process.

Depends on what measures entail "securing the elections".

I don't have an issue with voter ID. I have always had to show ID. I can't get a ballot without proving I live in a specific district. So I am surprised that people keep implying that anyone can get a ballot.

I have issue with reducing the amount of time allowed for voting and restricting mail in ballots.

 

[Confucamus]

Depends on what measures entail "securing the elections".

I don't have an issue with voter ID. I have always had to show ID. I can't get a ballot without proving I live in a specific district. So I am surprised that people keep implying that anyone can get a ballot.

I have issue with reducing the amount of time allowed for voting and restricting mail in ballots.

I used to remember having to show my ID at the polls, but I haven't been asked for the past few elections. Mail in ballots should be reserved for the elderly/disabled and veterans. In person voting is so much more secure and organized. I agree with you that narrowing the window of time to vote can be disastrous, but it needs to be looked at. There also can't be states that take 4 months to certify. They shouldn't be allowed to stop counting randomly because they're tired. Millions of Americans find that idea very shady.

 

[MicroBrew]

I used to remember having to show my ID at the polls, but I haven't been asked for the past few elections. Mail in ballots should be reserved for the elderly/disabled and veterans. In person voting is so much more secure and organized. I agree with you that narrowing the window of time to vote can be disastrous, but it needs to be looked at. There also can't be states that take 4 months to certify. They shouldn't be allowed to stop counting randomly because they're tired. Millions of Americans find that idea very shady.

Plenty of people can not take the day off or for whatever reason can not make it to the polls in time. I don't see an issue with mail-in balloting for the general populace, because it is a convenience factor.

I am not aware of anyone's votes not being counted, unless the votes were submitted after the deadline.

 

[Confucamus]

Plenty of people can not take the day off or for whatever reason can not make it to the polls in time. I don't see an issue with mail-in balloting for the general populace, because it is a convenience factor.

I am not aware of anyone's votes not being counted, unless the votes were submitted after the deadline.

What about the idea of making it a holiday that everyone has off? Obviously, first responders and essential workers wouldn't have the day off, but maybe an additional 2 day window for them to vote could be implemented to give them time to get to the polls.

 

[Scerpi]

A few years back, we had a poll where most people were good with a voter holiday in return for voter ID. Would you pass a bill for a holiday in return for it being a single day?

Yes... Why not. There's holidays for much dumber shit.

Elections are one of the most important processes we have. I'd be fully in support of it and even allow school buses to transport people can't get to polls on their own.

 

[Scerpi]

What about the idea of making it a holiday that everyone has off? Obviously, first responders and essential workers wouldn't have the day off, but maybe an additional 2 day window for them to vote could be implemented to give them time to get to the polls.

I really liked how we a week window to vote in person here in Texas, with Tuesday being the cut off. I went at lunch and there was hardly anyone there.

 

[MicroBrew]

What about the idea of making it a holiday that everyone has off? Obviously, first responders and essential workers wouldn't have the day off, but maybe an additional 2 day window for them to vote could be implemented to give them time to get to the polls.

Mail in ballots has been allowed for a long time, long before the 2020 election, so I am not seeing the issue here. 2020 saw a larger than usual number of mail-in ballots because of the pandemic.

For in person voting, the time window should be a week at minimum, with atleast 2 days being a Federal Holiday.

 

[HockeyBjj]

A few years back, we had a poll where most people were good with a voter holiday in return for voter ID. Would you pass a bill for a holiday in return for it being a single day?

I don’t know why conservatives don’t push for voter holiday on its own. Surely the party of hard workers would benefit more than the party of welfare that isn’t working on Election Day anyways right?

 

[Papi Chulo]

Why would you want to make it hard for people to vote, unless you want to deliberately restrict the ability of people to vote. For a country with over 330 million people, of which 250 million are of voting age, having just 1 day is a deliberate attempt to suppress the vote.

There was no widespread voter fraud. Just repeating a lie often enough does not make it true.

It's not hard to vote. Show up at the polls and show your ID on election day or get an absentee ballot that is tied to a verifiable living person that can be identified with ID at a certain address.