2022: Fitzpatrick Voted For The FY 2023 Omnibus Spending Package,
Which Included The Presidential Election Reform Act And Changed The
Procedures For Casting And Counting Electoral Votes In Presidential
Elections. In December 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted to concur with the Senate amendment to the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which would "modify procedures
for casting and counting electoral votes in presidential elections." The
vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate
amendment by a vote of 225-201, thus bill was sent to President Biden
and ultimately became law. [House Vote 549,
12/23/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 12/23/22;
Congressional Actions, S.Amdt.
6552;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
2617]
The Presidential Election Reform Act Made It More Difficult To
Overturn A Certificated Presidential Election, Which Was The First
Legislative Response To The January 6th Insurrection Led By Former
President Trump. According to CNN, "A provision in the legislation
aims at making it harder to overturn a certified presidential
election, the first legislative response to the US Capitol
insurrection and then-President Donald Trump's campaign to stay in
power despite his loss in 2020." [CNN,
12/29/22]
The Provisions Reformed The Electoral Count Act Of 1887.
According to CNN, "The changes overhaul the 1887 Electoral Count
Act, which Trump tried to use to overturn the 2020 election." [CNN,
12/29/22]
The Provisions Clarified That The Vice President's Role During The
Certification Of Election Results Was Exclusively Ceremonial And
Clarified The Accurate Slate Of State Electors. According to CNN,
"The legislation clarifies the vice president's role while
overseeing the certification of the electoral result to be
completely ceremonial. It also creates a set of stipulations
designed to make it harder for there to be any confusion over the
accurate slate of electors from each state." [CNN,
12/29/22]
The Provision Raised The Threshold For Objecting To A State's
Slate Of Electors To 20% Of Members Of Each Chamber Of Congress,
Instead Of Having Only One Member Of Each Chamber Challenge The
Electors. According to NPR, "Importantly, the measure also would
raise the bar for objecting to a state's slate of electors. As it
stands now, it takes just one member of the House and one senator to
challenge a state's electors and send both chambers into a
potentially days-long debate period, even without legitimate
concerns. The new legislation would raise the threshold for an
objection to 20% of the members of each chamber." [NPR,
12/23/22]
2022: Fitzpatrick Voted Against The Presidential Election Reform Act,
Which Would Specify That The Vice President Does Not Have The Authority
To Validate Or Invalidate Electoral Votes And Require Objections To A
State's Electors To Be Signed By 1/3 Of Members In Each Chamber And Only
Permit Valid Reasons For The Objections. In September 2022, according
to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against the Presidential
Election Reform Act, which would "make numerous modifications to the
presidential election process. Among provisions related to the counting
of electoral votes in a joint session of Congress, the bill would
specify that the vice president has only a 'ministerial' role in the
process and does not have any power to resolve disputes concerning the
validity of electoral appointments or votes. It would require objections
to a state's electors to be signed by one third of members in each
chamber and only allow objections on the grounds that a state was not a
valid state at the time electoral votes were cast; a state submitted
more votes than it is constitutionally entitled to; an elector is
constitutionally ineligible to be an elector; an electoral vote was cast
for a candidate who is ineligible to be president or vice president; or
an electoral vote was cast in violation of certain election law
requirements." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a
vote of 229-203, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did
not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 449,
9/21/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 9/21/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8873]
The Bill Aimed To Clear Up Ambiguities And Old Language In The
Presidential Election Certification Process, Which Former President
Trump And His Allied Attempted To Use To Overturn The 2020
Presidential Election. According to NPR, "The House on Wednesday
passed a set of electoral reforms aimed at shoring up ambiguities
and archaic language in the presidential certification process, some
of which former President Donald Trump and his allies tried to
exploit in their efforts to overturn the 2020 election." [NPR,
9/21/22]
The Bill Would Make It Harder For Congress Members To Hinder The
Certification Process With Objections Without Legitimate Concerns
And Clarify That The Vice President's Duty In Counting Electoral
Votes Would Be "Strictly Ministerial." According to NPR, "The
38-page bill would make a number of changes to the law that governs
how Electoral College votes are submitted by states and then counted
by Congress, known as the Electoral Count Act. Notably, the
legislation would make it more difficult for members of Congress to
muck up the certification process with objections that aren't based
on legitimate concerns, and would clarify that the vice president's
role in counting electoral votes is strictly ministerial." [NPR,
9/21/22]
The Bill Included Several Provisions That Would Limit The Length
And Number Of Recesses In The Joint Session While Certifying
Presidential Electoral Votes. According to Congressional
Quarterly, "It would include various provisions to limit the length
and numbers of recesses in the joint session." [Congressional
Quarterly, 9/21/22]
The Bill Would Establish Guidelines For State Governors To Appoint
And Certify Electors Before December 14, Establish December 23 As
The Deadline For Electors To Meet And Case Their Electoral College
Votes, Require Certified Electoral Votes To Be Submitted Physically
And Online, And Raise The Penalty To $25,000 For An Elector Failing
To Submit The Required Election Certificates. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "Among provisions related to the electoral
college process in the states, the bill would establish procedures
for state governors to appoint and certify electors no later than
Dec. 14; set Dec. 23 as the date for electors to meet and cast their
votes in the electoral college; require certified electoral college
votes to be transmitted electronically as well as physically; and
increase the fine for electors who fail to properly submit required
election certificates from $1,000 to $25,000." [Congressional
Quarterly, 9/21/22]
The Bill Would Permit Candidates To File A Federal Judicial Relief
Against A State Governor Who Failed To Appoint And Certify Electors
Or Against Anyone Who Failed Or Refused To Count Or Report A Legally
Cast Electoral College Vote Or Certify The Election. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "It would allow candidates to file for
federal judicial relief against a governor who fails to properly
appoint and certify electors or against any individual who fails or
refuses to tabulate, count or report a legally cast vote or certify
election results." [Congressional Quarterly,
9/21/22]
The Bill Would Remove Permission For A State Legislature To
Appoint Electors If The State Failed To Do So On Election Day, And
The Bill Would Instead Allow A U.S. District Court Panel To Extend
The Voting Period For Up To Five Days After Election Day In The
State In Case Of A Catastrophic Event, Such As A Natural Disaster,
Terrorism Event Or Power Outage. According to Congressional
Quarterly, "The bill would also replace existing law allowing a
state legislature to appoint electors if the state has 'failed to
make a choice' on Election Day with provisions allowing a U.S.
district court panel to extend voting in a state up to five days
beyond Election Day in the event of a 'catastrophic event' --
defined as a major natural disaster, act of terrorism or widespread
power outage -- that prevents a 'substantial portion' of the
electorate from voting or ballots from being counted."
[Congressional Quarterly,
9/21/22]
The Bill Would Increase The Threshold For Congress To Consider An
Electoral Vote Objection From Just One Member Of Each Chamber To At
Least One-Third Of Both Chambers. According to The New York Times,
"The measure also would raise the threshold substantially for
Congress to consider an objection to a state's electoral votes,
requiring that at least one-third of the House and Senate sign on to
such a challenge, up dramatically from the one member of each
chamber that is now required. The Senate proposal has a lower
threshold, requiring one-fifth of the House and Senate to agree."
[New York Times,
9/21/22]
The Bill Would Narrowly Define The Basis For An Objection To A
State's Electors To Those With A Constitutional Basis. According
to The New York Times, "Members of both parties have raised
objections in recent elections, though none have been sustained by a
majority of the House and Senate. The House bill would also more
narrowly define the grounds for an objection to those with a defined
constitutional basis." [New York Times,
9/21/22]
The Bill Would Prevent States From Reversing Election Results By
Requiring States That Choose Their Electors To Do Before Election
Day And The Bill Would Permit Candidates To Sue State Officials If
They Fail To Submit Their Electors Or Certified Electors That Do Not
Match Election Results. According to The New York Times, "The
legislation was also a direct response to Mr. Trump's efforts to
orchestrate the submission of fake slates of electors in states won
by Joseph R. Biden Jr. It would require that states choose their
electors under laws in place before the election, a provision
intended to prevent states from reversing course if they do not like
the result. And the bill would allow candidates to sue state
officials if they failed to submit their electors or certified
electors that did not match the election results." [New York Times,
9/21/22]
The Bill Would Establish Circumstances In Which A Federal Judge
Could Extend Voting Periods Due To A Catastrophe And Require
Election Officials To County Ballots Or Certify An Election Even If
The Official Were To Refuse. According to The New York Times, "It
also would lay out the circumstances in which a federal judge could
extend an election following a catastrophe and force election
officials to count ballots or certify an election if they refused to
do so." [New York Times,
9/21/22]
Republicans Claimed The Bill Was Another Attempt By Democrats To
Usurp Federal Control Over State Elections. According to The New
York Times, "Republicans said the legislation represented a renewed
Democratic attempt to exert more federal control over elections that
are usually the responsibility of state officials and courts." [New
York Times,
9/21/22]
Republicans Portrayed The Bill As A Legislative Extension To The
January 6th Special Committee. According to The New York Times,
"They also accused Democrats of using the bill to take aim at Mr.
Trump, portraying the legislation as an extension of the work of the
special committee investigating Jan. 6, which most House Republicans
denounce as a partisan exercise aimed at blaming Mr. Trump for the
assault on the Capitol." [New York Times,
9/21/22]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Presidential Election
Reform Act. In September 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted against the "adoption of the rule (H Res 1372) that
would provide for House floor consideration of the Presidential Election
Reform Act (HR 8873). The rule would provide for up to one hour of
general debate on the bill." The vote was on the adoption of the rule.
The House adopted the rule by a vote of 219-209. [House Vote 446,
9/21/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 9/21/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8873;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1372]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Presidential Election
Reform Act. In September 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted against the "motion to order the previous question
(thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res
1372) that would provide for House floor consideration of the
Presidential Election Reform Act (HR 8873). The rule would provide for
up to one hour of general debate on the bill." The vote was on a motion
to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote
of 219-209. [House Vote 445,
9/21/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 9/21/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8873;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1372]