Bill Overview
Title: Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022
Description: This bill revises the process of casting and counting electoral votes for presidential elections. The bill also revises provisions related to the presidential transition process. The bill specifies that the choice of electors must occur in accordance with the laws of the state enacted prior to election day. Additionally, the bill identifies each state's governor (unless otherwise identified in the laws or constitution of a state in effect on election day) as responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying the state's electors. Further, the bill provides for expedited judicial review for any action brought by an aggrieved presidential or vice-presidential candidate arising under the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws with respect to the issuance or transmission of such a certificate. The bill revises the framework for the joint session of Congress to count electoral votes and make a formal declaration of which candidates have been elected President and Vice President. Among other changes, the bill (1) specifies that the role of the Vice President during the joint session shall be ministerial in nature, and (2) raises the objection threshold in Congress to at least one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill also revises the presidential transition process, including to (1) allow more than one candidate to receive federal transition resources under certain circumstances, and (2) require additional reporting by the General Services Administration.
Sponsors: Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by the U.S. Presidential election process
Estimated Size: 334000000
- The bill affects the process by which electoral votes are cast and counted in presidential elections.
- Changes to the electoral process could influence everyone involved in presidential elections, including electors and state officials like governors.
- The bill could impact presidential and vice-presidential candidates, especially those challenging electoral outcomes.
- Expedited judicial reviews might alter how quickly election disputes are resolved, affecting candidates and related legal professionals.
- Revisions to the presidential transition process might influence the resources available to candidates, potentially impacting their staff and transition teams.
Reasoning
- The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 primarily affects individuals directly involved in the electoral process, such as state officials, electors, and presidential candidates. Indirectly, it may influence the general public by altering election security perceptions and transition efficiency.
- Since the policy aims to clarify and expedite processes, its immediate impact may not be strongly felt by the general populace, who may prioritize economic or social concerns instead. However, any changes in election reliability can have broad implications over time.
- The population most directly affected could be hundreds of thousands, including state officials, legal professionals involved in election disputes, and transition team members. Therefore, the impact on national self-reported wellbeing may be modest initially, given the limited scope and target.
- Since the policy's budget is limited to $10,000,000 initially and $17,500,000 over 10 years, it aligns with minor adjustments and clarifications, rather than radical changes. Thus, the change in wellbeing scores may be gradual rather than immediate or significant.
- To cover diverse perspectives, simulated interviews will include voters, state officials, and others indirectly impacted.
Simulated Interviews
State Election Official (Georgia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the reforms are necessary to prevent misunderstandings during elections.
- The changes will help ensure our processes are clear and fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Elector (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The clarified processes ensure that my role remains transparent and accountable.
- This reform enhances trust in the system among electors and citizens.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Lawyer (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expedited reviews are crucial for quick and fair resolution of disputes.
- This change is essential for maintaining electoral integrity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Governor (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The process simplification helps states avoid legal complications.
- This is a proactive step to secure election processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Presidential Campaign Staff (Florida)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Allowing more than one candidate to access resources is fair where outcomes are uncertain.
- This policy supports smoother transitions and readiness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Political Analyst (Pennsylvania)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reform strengthens the credibility of the electoral outcomes.
- Important for maintaining public trust in democracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Voter (Ohio)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about election integrity, any improvement is welcome.
- The changes make the process more robust against fraud.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Election Observer (Arizona)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reforms will help observers like me do our job more effectively.
- Clearer guidelines reduce the risk of misunderstandings during elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
College Student (Wisconsin)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see reforms aimed at improving election transparency.
- As a young voter, I feel these changes are necessary for future elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Congressional Staffer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The raised objection threshold will streamline proceedings and reduce pointless debates.
- This reforms the focus on genuine concerns during electoral counts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $1000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Impact primarily focused on electoral and transition processes; does not significantly alter financial landscape.
- Initial implementation costs expected due to procedural changes, especially related to judicial reviews and transition resources.
- Long-term fiscal impacts are minimal due to the nature of reforms focusing on procedure over policy.
- Effects on the overall legislative environment are more prominent than economic or financial outcomes.