Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Helping states comply with the Electoral Count Reform Act

Election Reformers Network details simple steps for states to comply with new federal law before the 2024 election.

News

Helping states comply with the Electoral Count Reform Act
Getty Images

Confusing and ambiguous laws for critical phases of the presidential election played a big role in the near failure of America’s peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 elections. Republicans and Democrats in Congress took on the problem, passing critically important bipartisan legislation in December 2022. Now, it’s up to the states to complete this important work. Before the 2024 election, all states and Washington D.C. should assure their own laws and procedures comply with the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA).

To date only a handful of states have enacted ECRA compliance changes.


This week, Election Reformers Network (ERN) released a new report, “ Helping States Comply with the Electoral Count Reform Act,designed for state legislators and their staff, election officials, and other administrators. The report summarizes the impact of the ECRA on state law and provides six recommendations on what states need to look for—and potentially change.

“The Electoral Count Reform Act reflects a broad bipartisan consensus that clarity counts when the stakes are high and time is short,” said G. Michael Parsons, ERN Senior Counsel and lead author of the report. “The report aims to make implementation as simple as possible so states can carry on this important and timely work ahead of the 2024 presidential election.”

The ECRA updated the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which contained the ambiguous and outdated language that provided a pretext for attempts to subvert the 2020 election. Recognizing the importance of clarity for the processes governing a peaceful transfer of power, Congress affirmed the purely ministerial role of the vice president, tightly narrowed the grounds for objection to electoral votes in Congress, and underlined the primacy of courts in resolving election disputes. In addition, the ECRA added new procedures to avoid any ambiguity around the validity of electoral votes received from the states.

Because of these changes, there are now discrepancies between state and federal laws. “We shouldn’t be relying on eleventh-hour litigation in 2024 to fix foreseeable issues that can be addressed today,” said ERN Executive Director Kevin Johnson. “We don’t need to take that chance.”

The report’s recommendations need not always be adopted through legislation—some could be incorporated through rule-making and guidance, or even referenced by courts when determining appropriate requirements, remedies, and deadlines in particular cases.

The report will go to election officials and legislators in all 50 states. In some locations ERN will be working directly with state leaders to advance the needed changes.

The report and executive summary can be read on the ERN website, along with other election resources.


Read More

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s  SCOTUS Appointees

Silhouette of a hand holding a vote putting in a ballot box in front of the national flag Stars and Stripes of USA.

Getty Images

Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s SCOTUS Appointees

The 21st-century Supreme Court Justices appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote have fundamentally reshaped the affordability crisis by dismantling federal regulatory authority, weakening consumer protections, and expanding landlords' and local governments' property rights over renters.

Specifically, five current justices fit this description: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito (appointed by George W. Bush following the 2000 election), alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (appointed by Donald Trump following the 2016 election). This conservative supermajority has heavily influenced cost-of-living metrics through historic rulings in administrative, housing, and financial law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep ReadingShow less
California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Xavier Becerra

Getty Images

California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Political strategist, IVN commentator, and The Latino Century author Mike Madrid has a blunt warning for California: The campaign to repeal the state’s nonpartisan Top Two primary would disproportionately silence the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

In a new Sacramento Bee op-ed, Madrid argues that Latino voters—particularly those who do not align with either major party—played a significant role in California’s record-setting June primary.

Keep ReadingShow less