In thinking about what specific revisions to the Electoral Count Act are necessary, I think it's important not just to look backward at 2020, but to consider how a future crisis may be somewhat different (mini-thread)
The ECA can come into play in three scenarios:
1.) A disputed state outcome (two slates of electors) can be settled by Congress
2.) A state acting corruptly can have its EVs thrown out by Congress
3.) Legitimate state results can be corruptly thrown out by Congress
In 2020 all the states ended up submitting legitimate results. So the problem that manifested on January 6 was #3 — a corrupt attempt by a congressional faction to throw out legitimate results.
But the problem in 2024 or later may be different. There could be a disputed state result with two sets of electors. Or a state itself could act corruptly, overriding the legitimate outcome.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In April he told me: “I’ve never considered it from that standpoint because I know I can change more from where I’m at. And I still believe in the principles of the Democratic Party that I grew up with.” vox.com/22339531/manch…
The spectre of a party-switch hangs because it brought a quick end to the last 50-50 Senate. Many reasons to doubt Manchin would do it. Of course if, say, Biden and Schumer went to war against him like some progressives want, might be a different story.
That's basically what Manchin said to me. Then again that was also true for Jim Jeffords, who did it in 2001. Jeffords acted mainly out of personal pique.
There’s been a lot of conflation of separate issues into “the Republican Party’s threat to democracy,” which is effective rhetorically but can confuse things from the “what to do about it” perspective
Schumer's plan was to vote on S.1 at the end of the month. Activists had hoped to use it to make the case for filibuster reform.
Manchin has cut that off at the knees, making clear the bill won't even get 50. And focus on bipartisanship means changes to substance won't sway him
See for instance this @sambrodey piece from just a few days ago. This was how activists hoped the drama would play out (a bit of magical thinking here), but Manchin has since made clear it's not happening.
As I explored in my profile there are two Manchins, depending on the issue. There's one who will play hardball but cut a deal in the end. And there's another who will put his foot down, and keep it down.
The way you get bipartisanship on a bipartisan commission is, often, a sort of gentlemen's agreement not to make either party look too bad. Mutually assured destruction.
That's ill-suited for 1/6, because only one party looks bad on that issue
Recall that it was moderate House Republicans who introduced a bill to create a 1/6 commission, just days after the Capitol was stormed.
The idea was, explicitly, that the country needed something like a 9/11 Commission to provide a full accounting of what happened.
What could such a commission do?
1.) It could uncover new facts. But it wouldn't have special powers to do so. Any ordinary cong. committee has the same powers. And a commission half-controlled by McConnell/McCarthy appointees likely wouldn't be aggressive in using those powers
One day later, McConnell says on Senate floor that "after careful consideration" he will oppose Dems' 1/6 commission proposal, calling it unnecessary because there are enough investigations already
McConnell had some disagreements with specifics of Dems' proposal, but of course he could try and negotiate on those if he wanted to.
The lines about a new investigation being unnecessary seem to justify blanket opposition to the idea.
McConnell's position is currently being expressed as his personal opinion, not the party's. So still theoretically possible he will not try hard to block the commission and leave it up to his senators. But he isn't helping.