The Electoral Count Act of 1887

A recent New York Times editorial responds to the efforts of a bipartisan group of senators to consider changes in the Electoral Count Act of 1887. But the editorial is not a good guide to what may need to be changed.

February 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM

8 minute read

William Josephson

ballot box; voting The Editorial Board of the New York Times on Sunday, Feb. 6, published Jan. 6 Was a Warning. Will Lawmakers Do Anything To Protect the 2024 Election?

The editorial responds to the efforts of a bipartisan group of senators to consider changes in the Electoral Count Act of 1887. But the editorial is not a good guide to what may need to be changed. Its language is often overbroad: the Act is not a "legal monstrosity;" "ambiguity on the page opens the door to bloodshed in the streets;" "fixing, at long last, the 135-year-old federal law;" "the law's confounding language created the space for a seductive narrative about a stolen election;" "Yet that much should have been crystal-clear even before 2020;" "the mess of the Electoral Count Act."

Lost in all this hyperbolic rhetoric is the fact that the Act did its job on Jan. 6, 2021 as it has always done since its enactment.