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The ECRA updated the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which contained the ambiguous and outdated language that provided a pretext for attempts to subvert the 2020 election.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

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