In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses what American politics will look like in 2022 from Congress to the upcoming midterm elections.
Podcast: What will American politics look like in 2022?
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
A sign that reads: Voting
E4C
How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act
May 31, 2026
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Key Takeaways
- The Electoral Count Reform (ECRA) of 2022 modernizes the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which governed how Congress counts Electoral College votes. The original Act has been widely criticized as vague and susceptible to exploitation.
- The ECRA clarifies that the Vice President’s role is ceremonial, raises the objection threshold to 20 percent of both chambers, and designates governors as responsible for submitting elector certificates.
- Supporters argue that the bipartisan reform prevents future election disputes and protects democratic stability, while critics contend that it was rushed, doesn’t address deeper election integrity issues, and raises concerns about federalism.
- The Act reflects bipartisan cooperation but continues debates about federalism and the balance of power between states and Congress.
The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (ECRA) was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in July 2022 and signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2022. It is a reform to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA), a law that governs how Congress counts the Electoral College votes for president every four years. The Act is also a response to President Donald Trump’s efforts to dispute the 2020 presidential election results, which revealed several gaps in the law that could be exploited by a presidential candidate.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887: Origins and Purpose
The original ECA was passed by Congress in response to the disputed 1876 election between former President Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden, which involved allegations of fraud, violence, disenfranchisement, and competing slates of electors from four states. The Constitution offered no clear guidance for resolving competing electoral slates, leading to the Compromise of 1877, which awarded the presidency to Hayes. Congress recognized the need for clarity and passed the ECA in 1887, following close elections and failed reform efforts.
The original ECA has several proponents:
- Sets the Electoral College voting date to the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
- Establishes a “safe harbor” deadline, which means if states finalize results six days before the Electoral College vote, Congress must treat those results as conclusive,
- Provides a process for Congress to resolve competing slates of electors if a state submits more than one,
- Outlines procedures for Congress to count electoral votes on January 6, including an objection process,
- And a single senator and a single representative can jointly object in writing, triggering debate and votes in both chambers.
Weakness in the Original Law
The ECA has long been criticized for being vague and confusing, especially its rules governing the handling of competing slates. Scholars have called the law “confused,” “almost unintelligible,” “repetitious,” and “contradictory.” Challenges to the 2020 election results renewed scrutiny and criticism of the ECA’s weaknesses.
After the 2020 election, disputes over the results brought to light ambiguities in the ECA, including legal arguments that the results could be challenged through the electoral process. Lack of clarity about the VP’s role in the count of electoral college votes sparked legal and political debates over whether the VP had authority to reject or delay the certification of electoral votes from contested states. On January 6, 2021, as Congress convened to count electoral votes, objections were raised to several states’ results under the ECA’s objection procedure. The session was disrupted by the Capitol attack, and Congress reconvened later that evening to complete the count.
Key Provisions of The Electoral Count Reform Act
The Electoral Count Reform Act reforms the ECA in several key ways
- Mandates that rules for selecting electors in each state be made prior to Election Day,
- Clarifies that the vice president’s role in overseeing the counting of the electoral votes is only ceremonial,
- Raises the threshold for objections to a state’s electoral votes from just a single member of the House and Senate to 20% of both chambers, and
- Designates the governor as the sole state official (unless otherwise specified by state laws) responsible for submitting a certificate of electors in order to make it harder for a defeated presidential candidate to submit false electoral slates.
Arguments in Support of Reform
Supporters argue that the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) clarifies and updates the 1887 Electoral Count Act, a statute long criticized as complex and open to differing interpretations—particularly following disputes after the 2020 election. The reform specifies that the Vice President’s role in counting electoral votes is ministerial, meaning the office lacks unilateral authority to reject or select electors. It also raises the threshold for congressional objections to electoral votes from one member of each chamber to 20 percent of the members of both the House and the Senate, intended to limit objections that lack broader support.
The law requires states to establish rules for appointing electors prior to Election Day and restricts changes to those rules after the election. It identifies governors as the primary officials responsible for submitting electoral certificates, unless state law provides otherwise, to reduce the likelihood of competing slates of electors. The ECRA also creates expedited judicial review procedures to address disputes before the Electoral College meets. Its bipartisan passage has been cited by some as an effort to strengthen procedural clarity and reduce uncertainty in future presidential election certifications.
Arguments Against Reform
Critics contend that the ECRA was rushed through, with insufficient debate over legislation that significantly affects presidential elections. Some conservatives argue the reforms either do not go far enough to prevent election disputes or improperly shift authority between states and the federal government, raising broader concerns about federalism and state control over elections. Because elections are administered at the state level, implementing new federal standards may create logistical and legal challenges as states update their laws.
Others note that while the ECRA addresses weaknesses in the electoral vote-counting process, it does not resolve other systemic election concerns, such as gerrymandering, voter suppression claims, or broader vulnerabilities in election administration. As a result, some argue that the law improves procedural clarity but leaves unresolved deeper structural debates about election integrity and democratic legitimacy.
Implications for Election Law and Federalism
Overall, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 reflects a bipartisan attempt to clarify long-standing ambiguities in the electoral process, while also raising ongoing debates about federalism, the balance of power between the states and Congress, and whether the reforms go far enough to safeguard democratic legitimacy.
Frequently Asked Questions:
- Why was the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) passed?
The ECRA was enacted in 2022 to update and clarify the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which had long been criticized as vague. Disputes following the 2020 presidential election highlighted ambiguities in the law, particularly regarding the Vice President’s role and the congressional objection process. - What are the most significant changes the ECRA makes?
The Act clarifies that the Vice President’s role in counting electoral votes is ceremonial, raises the threshold for congressional objections to 20 percent of members in both chambers, requires states to set elector-selection rules before Election Day, and designates governors as the primary officials responsible for submitting electoral certificates (unless state law provides otherwise). - How does the ECRA address disputes over electoral votes?
The law aims to reduce uncertainty by limiting objections lacking broader congressional support, discouraging competing slates of electors, and establishing expedited judicial review procedures to enable courts to resolve disputes before the Electoral College meets. - Does the ECRA resolve broader election system concerns?
No. The ECRA focuses specifically on clarifying the Electoral College vote-counting and certification process. It does not address other election-related issues such as voting access, redistricting, or campaign administration, which remain subjects of ongoing debate.
How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act was first published by ACE and republished with permission.
Sara Sajjad is a third-year undergraduate student at Northeastern University, majoring in political science and international affairs, with a minor in law and public policy on the pre-law track.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Worn american flag with white embroidered stars and red stripes.
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
Veterans Caught in the Justice System Need Support, Not Neglect
May 30, 2026
Roughly 200,000 service members leave the military each year. As a retired brigadier general who spent more than three decades in the U.S. Army, I know that most of them return home stronger from their service with a greater sense of pride and purpose.
But many veterans also carry invisible wounds. Suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other combat-related trauma, too many fall into the criminal justice system and still need our help.
Nearly one-third of veterans have been arrested and booked into jail at least once, compared to one in five non-veterans. Veterans are now twice as likely as non-veterans to face incarceration, and tens of thousands are currently imprisoned. The suicide rate for veterans is approximately 1.5 times higher than the rate among the general population, and it’s especially high for veterans leaving incarceration.
Unfortunately, the way we currently manage struggling veterans undermines recruitment and jeopardizes the health and safety of our veterans, their families, their communities, and, ultimately, our country.
The federal government recognizes this problem. In April, the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs held a bipartisan hearing exploring how to help justice-involved veterans.
I was there testifying on behalf of the Council on Criminal Justice Veterans Justice Commission. Launched in 2022, the Commission was chaired by former U.S. Defense Secretary and U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel and included former Defense Secretary and White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, as well as other leaders representing veterans, the military, the Veterans Administration, community advocates, and various sectors of the justice system.
Its aim was to examine the extent and nature of veterans’ involvement in the criminal justice system and develop recommendations for evidence-based policy changes that enhance safety, health, and justice for veterans and their families.
I outlined several of those recommendations in my testimony.
To start, we need more support for veterans when they reenter civilian life. Changes must start at the Pentagon by creating a dedicated office to support transition, adopting evidence-based programs to help at-risk service members, and expanding access to VA health benefits.
Next, we need more effective responses when veterans do break the law. That means expanding alternatives to prosecution and incarceration—such as diversion and treatment programs—and doing a better job of identifying veterans who end up in the system.
Finally, we need more resources for veterans during incarceration and when they re-enter their communities. This includes providing VA health care for those behind bars, prioritizing hiring of justice-involved veterans, and removing barriers that make it harder for veterans to access housing and benefits after release.
Beyond the Senate hearing, we’ve seen other encouraging signs that both the federal government and states are prioritizing veterans.
Earlier this year, Congress provided $4 million in the Justice Department budget for a National Center on Veterans Justice, as recommended by the Commission. The Center should act as a hub to improve the success of justice-involved veterans by identifying and replicating best practices nationwide and establishing robust program evaluation so we can invest in what works. If implemented properly, it will revolutionize how the justice system treats the unique cases of our veterans. States are also taking action. Following a Commission recommendation, Nebraska passed a law creating alternative sentencing options for veterans, and similar legislation is pending in several other states.
To be sure, veterans who break the law must be held accountable for their actions. But as a nation, we must also recognize our responsibility for the circumstances of military service that can contribute to criminal behavior. Our response should emphasize restoration, not punishment alone.
It is nothing short of tragic when those who once wore the cloth of our nation now wear the cloth of incarceration. We have a duty to uphold our military’s commitment that no man or woman who served our nation be left behind.
David MacEwen, a retired brigadier general, spent more than 30 years in the U.S. Army, concluding his service as the 59th Adjutant General. He is the director of the Council on Criminal Justice Veterans Justice Commission.
Keep ReadingShow less
closeup photo of turned on smartphone near keyboard
Photo by Caspar Camille Rubin on Unsplash
Informative Content and Conversations. OUT: Doomscrolling
May 30, 2026
As someone who grew up with the internet, it has been hard to set boundaries around screen time. I grab my phone instinctively—waiting for my coffee order or in a crowded elevator—as one or two minutes of stillness is apparently impossible. And that in itself concerns me.
It’s when I’m winding down to sleep, telling myself I can open TikTok or Instagram (my go-tos) for a bit, and suddenly two hours pass by, that I admit I’m practicing a harmful habit. This is “doomscrolling,” spending excessive time scrolling through social media content, typically negative news, that usually makes the person feel anxious, sad, or angry.
Nearly 1 in 3 Americans (31%) who use social media said they doomscroll, with younger generations at the forefront of this behavior (46% of millennials and 53% of Gen Z respondents), according to a 2024 Morning Consult survey.
Although everyone is susceptible to doomscrolling, according to Harvard Medical School Professor Dr. Richard Mollica, women and people with a history of trauma are also particularly vulnerable to doomscrolling.
While “doomscrolling” at night does not seem to affect everyone’s sleep the same way, significant research shows that it can greatly impact people’s emotional and physical health.
The repetitive consumption of negative content can “activate the body’s stress response,” which leads to elevated levels of anxiety and other mental health conditions. In the past decade, studies have linked the rise of social media use and doomscrolling to an increase in anxiety among young adults across the country.
Digital screens also emit blue light, which can delay the secretion of melatonin (a natural hormone that is important for sleep). Aside from poor sleep quality, blue wavelengths are also associated with other health problems, including mental health issues and increased risk of some cancers.
Set boundaries with your devices.
Charge your device across the room at night. Move that phone away from you. Give yourself a few minutes before bed (put a timer if needed) to check or respond to any messages. Then charge your phone, iPad, etc. across the room for the evening. This prevents instinctively reaching for your device. (And if you have an alarm for the morning, that’s even better—now you have to get up in the morning to turn it off.)
Instead, keep something like a book, comic, or journal by your bed if you can’t sleep. Or play an audiobook, podcast, or white noise from across the room to sleep.
Limit your screen time during the day. Be intentional about your social media time, and set a timer for how long you can scroll. Find times in your routine when it’s appropriate to use your phone, but you’re not tempted or able to spend more than 10-15 minutes on it.
You can also set daily limits on certain apps on your devices. For Apple products, you can use the “Screen Time” feature in settings. On Android, you can turn on the “Digital Wellbeing” feature. There are also separate apps that do this—I personally enjoy “Focus Friend” by Hank Green; I use it daily.
And one in doubt, temporarily (or permanently) delete an app from your phone. You can also hide an app from your home screen so you’re less inclined to instinctively click on it.
Find healthier ways to stay informed.
Read your local paper if you have one! Newspapers are a timeless way to stay up to date. To me, there’s something special about the feel of a new issue with a cup of coffee in the morning or tea before bed. When you grab your local paper, you’re simultaneously engaging with and supporting your immediate community—something we need more of.
Long-form digital content. When it comes to digital media, there are plenty of ways to effectively inform yourself on current events—and this is through longer form content.
Use social media as a starting point to discover timely events or issues that interest you. Make a note of these topics, and search for in-depth content that focuses on them: YouTube video essays, documentaries, podcasts, Substacks, etc.
Replace “doomscrolling” with conversations.
In a time of endless digital content and large social media presences, there is a lack of genuine connection between people.
A few times a week, my father and I call each other about some event in the news or an article that we’ve read, and we discuss it. There is something more meaningful and cathartic when you can talk through current events with the people around you.
Although political conversations have become so taboo in recent years, the only way we can have productive, open-minded conversations is through gentle practice.
If I have the energy to engage in a debate and have some of my ideas challenged, I bring up certain topics with my cousins (we are all really close, politically diverse, and we know when to pause the conversation if needed). If I feel emotionally exhausted and wish my feelings to be validated, I have other relatives and friends to reach out to. I am incredibly privileged to have diverse opinions and voices around me, because being both challenged and comforted holds incredible value. Mindlessly scrolling through my social media feed does neither.
Basically, doomscrolling is never productive. We have the right and ability to inform, empower, and care for ourselves and our communities. We just need to get off our phones.
Belen Dumont is the Associated Editor of The Fulcrum.
Keep ReadingShow less
the letters are made up of different colors
Photo by Steve A Johnson on Unsplash
Fulcrum Roundtable: Moving From Aspirational Statements to Hands-On AI Policy
May 30, 2026
Technology is currently transforming the economy faster than established institutions and societal choices can keep pace. Decisions made now regarding ethics, training, and governance will ultimately determine who benefits from these advancements and "who gets pushed aside".
In a recent episode of The Fulcrum Roundtable, Kevin Frazier, a collaborator with The Fulcrum, discussed two of his articles: Build Better AI and Layoff Headlines Keep Coming, Policy Answers Don't. Here’s One Solution.
The senior fellow at the Abundance Institute and director of the AI Innovation and Law Program at the University of Texas School of Law—emphasized that the future of responsible artificial intelligence requires moving beyond corporate mission statements toward active public participation and localized policy solutions.
- YouTube youtu.be
Frazier noted that while major AI labs like Google, Meta, Anthropic, and OpenAI often pledge to "harness the positive attributes" of AI while "mitigating the negative," such aspirational statements are often common sense—or "duh"—principles that lack specificity. He argued that society must be far more specific about identifying concrete "red lines" and specific positive use cases to prevent a purely reactive posture. Building responsible AI "demands far more than aspirational mission statements".
To achieve this, Frazier recommended a three-pronged approach for citizens to help shape the path forward. First, individuals should actively experiment with AI tools for "pro-social" tasks—such as article translation or researching diverse perspectives on voting issues—to understand their capabilities. Second, users should transparently "share when those use cases go right and share when those use cases go wrong" to help popularize tools that align with community values. Finally, Frazier urged political engagement, noting that since late 2022, over 1,700 AI-related bills have been introduced at the state level. He encouraged citizens to contact state representatives and city council members to help shape early-stage policy.
The transition to an AI-driven economy presents significant risks of "rocky" transition periods. While economists predict aggregate long-term job growth, the timing, location, and nature of these new roles remain uncertain, potentially leaving entire communities behind. Frazier criticized current retraining efforts, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), as being underfunded, fragmented, and lacking coordination. He specifically highlighted poor metrics that prioritize the speed of re-employment over job quality, which can push laid-off workers into new roles that remain highly vulnerable to AI displacement. He proposed "transition launchpads"—local hubs where displaced workers can receive training based on the specific demands of local employers.
Frazier also warned of an emerging "AI abyss" that could widen existing digital divides. He identified several groups at risk: those in rural and urban poor communities without affordable high-speed broadband; older Americans, as recent polling indicates a plurality of Boomers and the Silent Generation have not meaningfully engaged with AI; and non-English speakers, as many AI models "may not be as capable" when prompted in other languages.
Drawing a historical parallel to the 1930s Rural Electrification Administration and its "electrical circus," Frazier suggested using trusted local messengers—such as public librarians, teachers, and civic leaders—to demonstrate responsible AI use and protect community members from scams.
I invite you to spend some time reading his articles by clicking HERE.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More