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

[Lead]

I am confused tho, you probably know much better than me. But the link I posted, and I checked a few other sources, they said that the tactic made it so republicans couldn't use the filibuster as it had already passed the senate and house previously. It could have been 50-50 with Harris breaking the tie, no? I know it failed 49-51, which caused then caused the filibuster debate, but the extra no was Schumer, to bring about the filibuster vote.

I’m confused about the question. Was it why wasn’t it already passed if it already went through the senate and house?

If it’s about the Schumer vote, I haven’t looked into that but I know the majority leader sometimes has to be on a direction side of the vote for technical or strategic reasons. I know there was a vote earlier in the year that failed and Schumer switched his vote right at the end because it allowed them to get a revote later in time easier than if he hadn’t. That might be the case with this but I’m not entirely sure.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I’m confused about the question. Was it why wasn’t it already passed if it already went through the senate and house?

If it’s about the Schumer vote, I haven’t looked into that but I know the majority leader sometimes has to be on a direction side of the vote for technical or strategic reasons. I know there was a vote earlier in the year that failed and Schumer switched his vote right at the end because it allowed them to get a revote later in time easier than if he hadn’t. That might be the case with this but I’m not entirely sure.

This (the bolded part):

"The Democratic leadership of the House, in an unusual move, then took the Senate-amended bill and stripped out the NASA provisions, replacing it with the text of two voting rights bills and now called the “Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.” They did so because H.R. 5746 had already passed the House and Senate, so the amended version could go directly to the Senate floor without the threat of a filibuster from Senate Republicans, who oppose the voting rights legislation."

I saw it in a couple other sources too. But I don't know the senate rules this well. For the recent schumer vote, it was to bring about the debate and vote related to the filibuster... but yea, I don't know how that rule worked either lol.. confusing

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I guess it means they couldn't filibuster it prior to even getting it to the senate floor, which would prevent the open/televised debate for 2 days. But in the end they could still use it for the 60 votes.

 

[Lead]

This (the bolded part):

"The Democratic leadership of the House, in an unusual move, then took the Senate-amended bill and stripped out the NASA provisions, replacing it with the text of two voting rights bills and now called the “Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.” They did so because H.R. 5746 had already passed the House and Senate, so the amended version could go directly to the Senate floor without the threat of a filibuster from Senate Republicans, who oppose the voting rights legislation."

I saw it in a couple other sources too. But I don't know the senate rules this well. For the recent schumer vote, it was to bring about the debate and vote related to the filibuster... but yea, I don't know how that rule worked either lol.. confusing

I guess it means they couldn't filibuster it prior to even getting it to the senate floor, which would prevent the open/televised debate for 2 days. But in the end they could still use it for the 60 votes.

Yea, part of this was they got a bill to floor to debate. What happens is the filibuster is usually enacted before debate on a bill even starts, which triggers a minimum of thirty hours of floor time to debate whether the bill should be debated (yea, that sounds as crazy as it is). They navigated around that with the switch part so they could get a bunch of public attention and actually debate the bill but then when it gets to a vote, the filibuster can be used to still make the vote 60. This triggered Schumer to then debate the rules of the senate to have the bill only need a 50 vote threshold and not 60 (nuclear option). The nuclear option failed as expected but what was new and weird about this whole thing is they did bypass the debate filibuster.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Yea, part of this was they got a bill to floor to debate. What happens is the filibuster is usually enacted before debate on a bill even starts, which triggers a minimum of thirty hours of floor time to debate whether the bill should be debated (yea, that sounds as crazy as it is). They navigated around that with the switch part so they could get a bunch of public attention and actually debate the bill but then when it gets to a vote, the filibuster can be used to still make the vote 60. This triggered Schumer to then debate the rules of the senate to have the bill only need a 50 vote threshold and not 60 (nuclear option). The nuclear option failed as expected but what was new and weird about this whole thing is they did bypass the debate filibuster.

I have only been following politics this closely for a year or two. But I always enjoyed putting C-SPAN on the TV or radio at times and hear them shit on each other in the most polite ways possible... Damn though, didn't realize they had all these fucking rules lol

 

[west42]

So basically the dems expect a bloodbath next election and are being proactive in shoring up all means of "massaging" the results.

 

[Lead]

I have only been following politics this closely for a year or two. But I always enjoyed putting C-SPAN on the TV or radio at times and hear them shit on each other in the most polite ways possible... Damn though, didn't realize they had all these fucking rules lol

I try to watch the floor when key votes come up but usually they wait til like past midnight to even get anything done with it. It definitely isn’t viewer friendly. The senate is a very weird legislator. There are far more odd things about it the farther you dig. One thing I found is the majority leader gets to dictate the floor agenda but this (just like the filibuster) is a formality and a single senator could actually completely fuck up the floors schedule if they wanted to. If it happened though. It would really set things into completely chaos to the level that no one does it normally. The last rate time I saw it was Schumer was minority leader and scheduled a forced debate (or vote?) on something. I was surprised it didn’t make more headlines when it happened but maybe cause he was at least minority leader, it wasn’t too controversial. There’s tons and tons of things about the senate and it’s hard to find good resources to understand it all. I’ve been trying to the last year and it hasn’t been easy.

Same with SCOTUS. There are a lot of technical things that to them are common/ make sense if you look into it but on its face, it can easily be manipulated into a tribal headline story for a news outlet. I don’t know which of the two has been harder but still really interesting spheres of politics that I think deserve more attention.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I try to watch the floor when key votes come up but usually they wait til like past midnight to even get anything done with it. It definitely isn’t viewer friendly. The senate is a very weird legislator. There are far more odd things about it the farther you dig. One thing I found is the majority leader gets to dictate the floor agenda but this (just like the filibuster) is a formality and a single senator could actually completely fuck up the floors schedule if they wanted to. If it happened though. It would really set things into completely chaos to the level that no one does it normally. The last rate time I saw it was Schumer was minority leader and scheduled a forced debate (or vote?) on something. I was surprised it didn’t make more headlines when it happened but maybe cause he was at least minority leader, it wasn’t too controversial. There’s tons and tons of things about the senate and it’s hard to find good resources to understand it all. I’ve been trying to the last year and it hasn’t been easy.

Same with SCOTUS. There are a lot of technical things that to them are common/ make sense if you look into it but on its face, it can easily be manipulated into a tribal headline story for a news outlet. I don’t know which of the two has been harder but still really interesting spheres of politics that I think deserve more attention.

When I consume(d) C-Span, it was usually through radio, but when I watched this week, it made me laugh, but also blew my mind how many senators there are, that are basically useless and are just there making 500k a year or whatever.

I looked at the 50 democratic caucus, and they all have profile pictures here, https://www.democrats.senate.gov/about-senate-dems/our-caucus , so it is easy to scroll through here and i recognize more of them, but who is this weirdo in a very swing state? Looks like a villian in a children, but still creepy, horror movie. She actually looks like a female trump

Just like with here, I have NEVER heard of this republican senator

there were a few others, but these two stood out

 

[Lead]

When I consume(d) C-Span, it was usually through radio, but when I watched this week, it made me laugh, but also blew my mind how many senators there are, that are basically useless and are just there making 500k a year or whatever.

I looked at the 50 democratic caucus, and they all have profile pictures here, https://www.democrats.senate.gov/about-senate-dems/our-caucus , so it is easy to scroll through here and i recognize more of them, but who is this weirdo in a very swing state? Looks like a villian in a children, but still creepy, horror movie. She actually looks like a female trump

Just like with here, I have NEVER heard of this republican senator

there were a few others, but these two stood out

I can’t say I know anything about Stabenow. I know Ernst or whatever her name is because she won her seat not too long ago.

You aren’t usually going to see any senators earn their paycheck on the floor other than the vote piece. What you have factor in is two things
1. the committee(s) they work in or even head and what that’s providing. You can’t really know who is working the hardest in the committees and who is slacking but it usually gives more insight about what they focus on. For example, Rubio has been on the committee for foreign relations and intelligence multiple terms. He is usually far more focused on foreign policy than the average senator. He also is on the small business committee where the ideas for the PPP loans during lockdown originated from. You usually can also get an idea of what bipartisan ideas might get passed in the long run. For example, there’s a bunch of provisions passed by the ways and means committee that’s been referred to as the Securing a strong retirement act 2.0. Though it has a name, it’s far more likely to get packaged in a larger bill at some point. For awhile people were assuming it would get thrown into BBB but didn’t seem to happened. Could just pass on its own later in the year maybe.
2. What individual bills they/ their office drafts and/ or co-sponsors. There plenty of bills senators or house members come up with that never really get any attention due to their low chance of getting to a vote. A lot of people present the similar bills as well so it’s not necessarily the idea won’t get to a vote but their specific bill with that idea might not. This goes back to committees because the longer someone is around, the more weight they can have in getting their ideas at least presented and voted on in committee. Looking at different proposals, you get too see individualism of each senator vs the party itself. For example, Romney has proposed an expanded child tax credit that is in some ways similar to the Dems version in 2021. The GOP as a whole or at least McConnell isn’t on board with that bill necessarily but you can see some senators who could be (Cotton, Hawley) and some who aren’t (Paul, Cruz) or want something a little different in how the credit would work (Rubio, Lee). It gets too in the weeds for news to present it that way but things really aren’t just red v blue in the legislator. The majority leader just usually does a good job making it seem that way because they only usually have votes when they know they have enough to pass.

I’m rambling but just some things I’ve noticed about it.

 

[Lead]

So I think Trump might have inadvertently given ECA reform a higher chance of happenings but saying recently that the fact there are calls to clarify the language in it means that Pence in fact had the ability to overturn the election. What Schumer has stated as insufficient might now be glaring enough to have to address. It would be crazy imo to let it stay while a former president who intends to run again is saying the VP of a current administration can just determine an election.

Portman, who is on board with a reform bill in the senate, stated Trump might be right about it and that’s why it needs changed sooner than later.

Also, Pence has reiterated he did not have the ability to do this since Trump has brought it up. What’s annoying is the response should go further than that and be something along the lines of, “I would not overturn the decision of the people because the former president is a complete piece of shit” or something more formal. I know he’s stated it better in the past that no one should be able to change the will of the people or he was proud to participate in the certification of the election but it really needs stressed that it shouldn’t even be about whether he could’ve but how he absolutely shouldn’t have even if he was able to. I thought Trump would slip the longer time goes on and that seems more and more probably to me with his own recent words and the information coming out of the Jan 6 committee about what was going on after the election. People might not want to have to come around to admitting this guy is trash and be apologetic to his actions, but it isn’t going to hold over time. I think even that crowd honestly wants to move past Trump so they don’t have to defend this shit anymore.

Edit: he did include “Trump is wrong” and he couldn’t imagine something more un-American than that.

 

[ShadowRun]

Racist judge I assume

 

[Lead]

A bill still looks to be in the works in the senate. Unknown if we will see it this year but at the latest, it seems like before 2024.

Bipartisan Senate group to hash out new proposals to prevent stolen elections
NBC News

A bipartisan Senate group exploring new bills to prevent stolen elections plans to meet Tuesday to discuss a path after a two-week congressional recess, members of the group said.

The effort, which began months ago and has taken place behind the scenes, is centered on changing the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which associates of former President Donald Trump sought to exploit to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election.

 

[HARRISON_3]

No bamboo with 150ft of polling places, IMO

 

[Lead]

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.

 

[Lead]

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

 

[nhbbear]

Just curious, would anyone else vote for manchin for potus? I would and be very happy about it

 

[Lead]

Just curious, would anyone else vote for manchin for potus? I would and be very happy about it

Depends on the person he is running against but I don’t disqualify him on his own as someone I’d vote for.

 

[Lead]

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.

 

[Lead]

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.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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).

Is anyone going on record in opposition to this? Seems like that would be signaling a clear intent to try to prevent elections from deciding results. Or is there a defensible argument?