Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Reforming one law could prevent another election insurrection, experts say

Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi

On Jan. 6, then-Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi officiated the counting of electoral college votes — a process experts say needs urgent reform.

J. Scott Applewhite/Getty Images

To avoid a repeat of the Jan. 6 election insurrection, Congress needs to update a little-known law passed 134 years ago, experts say.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 governs the casting and counting of electoral votes every four years, but the law's language is arcane and often confusing, which leaves room for misuse, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. The cross-partisan group of more than 50 experts in election law, national security and voting rights released a reportTuesday renewing calls for swift congressional action to safeguard against potential future crises.


"Modernizing the ECA may well be the single most important thing that Congress can do to prevent a full-blown crisis in the next disputed presidential election," said Adav Noti, senior director for trial litigation and chief of staff at the Campaign Legal Center.

There are several deficiencies in the Electoral Count Act that experts say need to be rectified.

The timing for states to choose their electors, including the arcane rules for emergency, post-Election Day selection, should be clarified. "The current statute alludes vaguely to the possibility that a state's presidential election could result in 'failure,' but provides no definition or constraints, thus creating the potential for misunderstanding and even abuse," the report says.

The law should be reformed to better protect each state's ability to adjudicate its own post-election disputes and limit opportunities for second-guessing by partisan actors in Congress, the task force recommends.

The Electoral Count Act leaves too much room for uncertainty regarding the vice president's responsibilities, which are limited and ministerial, the report says. Before and on Jan. 6, there was speculation that the vice president had authority beyond opening envelopes and counting electoral votes. Therefore, the law should be updated to make clear the vice president "does not have the power to decide controversies that might arise over counting electoral votes or to otherwise decide the outcome of the election."

The threshold for raising objections to counting electoral votes should be raised well above the current requirement of only one member from each chamber, the report says. Also, the grounds upon which members of Congress may base objections should be narrowly defined so that lawmakers "may not simply substitute their own political preferences for the voters' judgment expressed at the ballot box and carried out by the Electoral College."

Finally, the law should be updated to establish procedures for resolving election disputes in Congress. The current mechanism is "convoluted and insufficient," the report says, because it details extensive procedures for Congress to follow but fails to provide a clear path to final resolution in many circumstances.

While these proposed reforms to the Electoral Count Act may sound small and technical, they could significantly bolster American democracy by ensuring a peaceful transition of power.

"Democracies today don't die through coups or wars," said Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The way that most democracies right now are failing is [...] by elected leaders with undemocratic tendencies altering the rules of the game."

For the last 15 years, there has been a steady decline in democracies globally — and the U.S. is no exception, said Kleinfeld, who is also a member of the task force. So it's not a question of if these problems will happen, but when, she added.

Jan. 6 is the latest and worst example to date of an attack on American democracy, but there have been regular abuses of the Electoral Count Act for the last two decades, Noti said. And they've been getting progressively worse.

"This is not the area to wait for something to break and fix it after," said Noti, who like Kleinfeld is a member of the task force. "If this breaks and we go down the nightmare road of a truly unresolved presidential election — imagine dueling inaugurations on Inauguration Day. Imagine the chaos and violence that could ensue. That's too late at that point."

Experts say now is the best time to reform the Electoral Count Act since the 2024 election is still years away and neither party can predictably benefit from modernizing the law.

Former Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, a Republican who co-chairs Issue One's Reformers Caucus, said he has had conversations with current members of Congress about updating the Electoral Count Act and he believes both parties can come together on this issue.

"We are all Americans first. Our parties come way down the list. Too many people have made party politics their religion, and that is now interfering in civil government and the continuity of this democratic republic," Wamp said. "[Reforming the law] has nothing to do with a partisan advantage or disadvantage."

At the end of January, the task force released its initial post-election report detailing the lessons learned from the 2020 contest and recommendations for how to improve future elections. Then in July, the task force issued an update outlining "concerning trends" that had developed over the last six months, including legislation that limits voter access and threats of violence against election workers.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less