Comment: One vote shows little seperates GOP and its fringe

Only eight House Republicans voted for electoral count reforms. Why? Because Liz Cheney backed it.

By Jonathan Bernstein / Bloomberg Opinion

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed its updated version of the Electoral Count Act, the archaic and loophole-filled law governing how Congress certifies presidential elections. The Senate has yet to act on its own version, which is similar, but with 10 co-sponsors from each party, it appears to be well on its way to passage, and there’s every possibility that a reconciled bill will be signed into law later this year.

So much for the good news. The less good news is what the House passage of the bill — on close to a party-line vote, with only nine Republicans joining all Democrats — says about the state of the Republican Party. As it turns out, when it comes to defending democracy, so-called mainstream Republicans may not be so different from extremist Republicans.

This difference was the topic of intense debate in the Democratic Party this year. The party supported some extreme candidates in Republican congressional primaries, on the theory that they would be easier to defeat in the general election. Critics said the practice was irresponsible and risked the possibility of putting people who would be a threat to U.S. democracy in Congress.

Wednesday’s vote doesn’t completely end that debate. But it does demonstrate that most mainstream Republicans are not interested in defending the Constitution; either because they are radicals themselves, or because they won’t stand up to those who are.

The House debate of the Electoral Count Act demonstrated exactly why Democrats may have been justified in their meddling. With only a handful of exceptions, most notably Wyoming’s Liz Cheney, a cosponsor of the bill, Republicans rejected the bill. Indeed, the party whipped against it, indicating that opposing this reform — opposing a key defense against a future coup — was an official party position.

Why? Few Republicans who participated in the House debate cited anything about the bill itself. Most of them talked more about inflation, crime, migrants and how President Biden was ruining the nation. This bill, they said, was an attempt to distract Americans from their real problems. Earlier reporting by Axios offered a more plausible reason: It quoted Republicans who opposed the bill because Cheney supported it. And their problem with Cheney is that she voted to impeach Donald Trump, and has participated in the Jan. 6 committee. If that’s really their reason, what does that say about them?

The obvious implication is that some of those Republicans are perfectly happy with a vulnerable election process; and the rest aren’t willing to fight for one. Not against Trump; not against Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene and the other radicals who are the real leaders of the House Republicans; not against Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin and the other leaders of the Republican Party.

So the problem isn’t just the extremists; it’s the rank-and-file Republican politicians. It means that there’s just not much of a difference between a House Republican conference with a few more radicals and one with a few more mainstream members.

During the floor debate, many Republicans questioned why the bill was being rushed. The answer is obvious: There’s a very good chance that Republicans will have a House majority in January, and no one expects them to move similar legislation.

Yes, things are different on the Senate side, where more Republicans may vote for it. Still, there’s a good argument that the more House Republicans are elected, the more U.S. democracy is in danger. (And for whatever it’s worth, in all six districts where Democrats meddled and the more extreme Republican was nominated, the Democrat is likely to win.)

Meanwhile, it remains absolutely critical that House Democrats and the bipartisan Senate group resolve their differences and pass a bill quickly. Well-written laws may not be able to completely stop coup plotters. But there’s no excuse for not making it as difficult as possible for them.

Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. A former professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University, he wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

A map of the news deserts of the United States. White dots indicate daily newspapers; darker areas show the counties with the fewest — or no — daily newspapers; lighter areas show areas with more local news sources. (Washington Post)
Editorial: Facebook’s bluff ends hopes for local news support

A threat helped scuttle legislation to pay local newspapers for the news social media profits from.

Editorial cartoons for Thursday, Dec. 8

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

An electric vehicle charges at an EVgo fast charging station in Detroit, Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2022. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
Editorial: Start work now to power electric vehicle future

The goal for more electric cars will require a beefed-up grid and a network of charging stations.

A pedestrian uses the crosswalk at 30th Street NE along 113th Avenue NE near Lake Stevens High School on Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Lake Stevens, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Stepped-up effort needed to reduce traffic deaths

Lawmakers, local officials and drivers, themselves, need to put more emphasis on traffic safety.

A floating offshore wind turbine platform is part of a six-turbine, 50 megawatt wind farm off the coast of Aberdeen, Scotland. (Starkraft)
Editorial: Answer for environment, maritime jobs blowing in wind

Floating offshore wind farms could be a boon for maritime employers like Everett’s Dunlap Towing.

Harrop: Democrats’ road to White House should start in S. Carolina

It shouldn’t start with Iowa’s caucuses, which are low-turnout affairs with little cultural diversity.

Comment: Why the GOP won’t admit its ‘candidate quality’ problem

Its current dynamics attract few people interested in policy and more who hope to get on Fox News.

Comment: The word ‘art’ isn’t a permit to discriminate

Lawyers for a website designer who won’t do LGBTQ weddings twisted the meaning of a 2017 column.

Comment: Reagan came to back global democracy; follow his lead

His shift in policy aided young democracies. The West should again embrace that course of action.

Most Read