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: Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide with interest in U.S. electoral process
Estimated Size: 335000000
- The bill directly impacts the legal and procedural framework for counting electoral votes in a U.S. presidential election, thus affecting the administration of elections in each state.
- The changes may impact the outcome of a presidential election in cases of disputed or contested electoral votes, affecting the political process and all citizens.
- The revisions affect the presidential transition process and could influence how future transitions are handled, impacting the entire country during periods of transition.
- Though the bill affects processes in the U.S., the stability and integrity of U.S. elections can have global implications due to the country's geopolitical standing.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts all U.S. citizens who participate in presidential elections, specifically altering electoral procedures and transition processes.
- It has broader implications on political stability, affecting national wellbeing concerning governance and democratic integrity.
- The budget constraints and program size limit the immediate tangible effects on individual wellbeing, but procedural assurance may affect perceived political stability.
- It is likely to most significantly impact individuals who are highly politically active or have a strong interest in electoral integrity.
Simulated Interviews
Political Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to ensure a more structured and legal framework for electoral vote counting, which I believe couldn't come at a better time.
- Knowing that there's a standardized process provides a level of comfort and assurance to all voters.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
State Election Official (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the bill is clear about the role of state governors, I worry about potential federal overreach.
- Ensuring an expedited judicial process will help prevent disputes from dragging on, which is a welcome change.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Political Science) (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to streamline what has been a somewhat chaotic process, especially in recent years.
- It could potentially take away state flexibility, which is an area of concern.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired School Teacher (Ohio)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel reassured knowing there's a solid framework to counter election-related chaos.
- It's crucial for every citizen to believe in the integrity of the electoral process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Florida)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I seldom pay attention to the finer details of election processes as long as I can vote.
- It sounds positive overall, but I'm not sure how it impacts me directly.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Journalist (Georgia)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The changes seem to provide a safeguard against irregularities we've seen in the past.
- It’s like providing a safety net for the democratic process—important for everyone.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Attorney (New York)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clarifying the vice president's role is essential—reduces the likelihood of power misuse.
- Raising the objection threshold encourages lawmakers to think more critically.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
College Student (Minnesota)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a positive step towards clearer and more reliable election processes.
- I think it will encourage younger voters like me to trust the process more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My main concern is that the election doesn't disrupt my life or the country importantly.
- If it makes the elections smoother, that's a good thing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Engineer (Pennsylvania)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With recent changes and disputes in elections, clear procedures like these are needed.
- It’s a good step towards maintaining trust and integrity in the system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $6000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $6000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $6000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $6000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Legal clarity in the electoral process could affect how states implement election-related laws, requiring some state-level adjustments.
- Potential increases in the number of candidates receiving federal transition support could be more pronounced in closely contested elections impacting short-term costs.
- Reducing errors or contested results from clearer electoral frameworks may positively influence public trust in elections, even if the direct financial impact is minor.
- State implementation burdens could vary depending on existing state legislation and preparedness for the updates.