2022: Schweikert Voted Against 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, Schweikert voted against concurring 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Presidential Election Reform Act. In September 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Presidential Election Reform Act. In September 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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]