Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4/House/Counting Electoral Votes/Arizona Objection Debate/Lofgren Speech
Ms. Lofgren. Madam Speaker, this day marks a crossroads for American democracy. Those who object to the counting of the electoral college votes, which reflect the votes of the American people, want to substitute their preferences for the voters’ choice. That is not what our Constitution requires, and it is at odds with our American democratic Republic.
If Congress selects the next President instead of the American voters, we would have no need for an electoral college. In fact, we would have no need for Presidential elections at all. We would be moving from a government elected by the people to a government selected by those already governing.
That is not America. In the United States, we abide by the choices of the people, not by an elite few.
The Framers of our Constitution considered to have Congress select the President and specifically rejected it. Instead, they wrote Article II and the 12th Amendment.
Article II creates the electoral college, where each State appoints electors. Laws of all 50 States and D.C. require electors to vote for the winner of the State’s popular election. Each State provides for the orderly conduct of elections, including lawful challenges, recounts, and the like.
The 12th Amendment is what brings us to today. It says the electors meet in their States. That happened December 14.
The amendment says the electors shall cast their votes, sign and certify them, and transmit them to us, sealed. That has been done. The sealed envelopes containing the signed and certified ballots from each State’s electors reflecting the votes of the people are in those mahogany boxes.
The 12th Amendment directs the Vice President, as the President of the Senate, to do only this: open the sealed envelopes and then the votes shall be counted. Simple. It doesn’t say counted in a manner that some Members of Congress or the Vice President might prefer. No. The votes are simply to be counted as certified and transmitted by the States.
□ 1130
During reconstruction after the Civil War, more than one slate of electors were appointed by States. Dueling lists were sent and protracted processes were undertaken in Presidential elections. And, as a result, to make an orderly process, Congress enacted the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This law governs our proceedings today. The act provides dispute resolution mechanisms.
Under the ECA, if a Governor certifies a slate of electors and there are no competing slates in that State, the Governor-certified must be counted. Today, every single slate of electors won by Joe Biden, or won by Donald Trump, got their Governor’s certification. Not a single State submitted a competing slate. There is no dispute to resolve.
The 2020 election was the most secure election conducted in modern history. Challenges were resolved by lawful recounts and audits.
The result?
Vice President Biden won the 2020 election.
More than 60 lawsuits were filed contesting elements of the election process. None of these lawsuits prevailed.
Why?
As even President Trump’s own judicial appointees ruled, there was no evidence of any wrongdoing that would change the outcome.
The people spoke. It was not a close election. The margin of victory for Biden in 2020 was larger than Trump’s margin in 2016. In fact, the Biden victory is one of the most decisive in modern times, exceeding the margin enjoyed by Reagan when he defeated Carter in 1980.
Congress has gathered in a joint session to count electoral votes every four years since 1789. I understand the disappointment people feel when their candidate for President loses. I have felt the same several times in my voting life.
When that happens, it is not an invitation to upend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. It is an invitation to work with the new President for the good of the country and to wait for the next election in 4 years if you are dissatisfied.
In that spirit, I urge my colleagues to uphold the American democracy and reject the objection.