The editors of the Wall Street Journal also remark favorably on the reform bill drafted by the Senate:
Under the reform, objections would need support from a fifth of the House (87) and Senate (20). The finality of the Governor’s electors means Congress couldn’t relitigate state disputes on mail ballots or voting machines. No rejecting electors merely because Congress sees shadows of “voter suppression†or “fraud.â€
One weakness is that the bill would continue to let Congress raise objections that an elector’s vote wasn’t “regularly given,†which is the same nebulous term Congress has abused for 20 years. This provision deserves more debate. The one-fifth threshold isn’t enough protection given that two years ago 147 House and Senate Republicans objected to electors from one state or another.
Other helpful provisions: The bipartisan bill would expedite lawsuits over electoral votes. An aggrieved presidential candidate could get an initial hearing from a three-judge panel, and appeals would go directly to the Supreme Court. The bill doesn’t say the Justices must hear the case, and that’s another weakness. A High Court imprimatur is warranted in these cases.
The best fix for the ECA would be full repeal. The Founders didn’t want Congress choosing the President, so he wouldn’t be subservient to it, and the ECA is too close for comfort. The courts are better suited to sort out disputes over electoral law and votes, as the Supreme Court did in 2000 in Bush v. Gore. The judiciary also performed well in 2020, as Trump-appointed judges rejected flimsy fraud claims.
But Congress, being Congress, isn’t likely to remove itself entirely from election certification. In that event the Senate reform goes a long way to diminishing the margin for catastrophic political error. The mystery is why it took 18 months to propose it.
So, no, the bill isn’t the last word on reforming presidential elections but it appears to be a step in the right direction.
