Read on Twitter
1/ There's an important procedural safeguard in the Electoral Count Act that was lacking in 1876--one that Cruz elides over in his calls for a commission. Here's some context. https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1345422940725252096
2/ Before the Electoral Count Act, both Houses had to affirmatively agree to count votes. In 1873, for instance, one house refused to count votes cast for Horace Greeley, who had died before the Electoral College convened. If one house refused, the votes weren't counted.
3/ This would be a major problem in 1877, as the House was controlled by Democrats & the Senate was controlled by Republicans. The contested electoral votes were more than enough to deny any candidate a majority.
4/ The Electoral Commission, then, was a way to help resolve this dispute--one both houses agreed to. The Commission would resolve any stalemate that might otherwise arise in Congress.
5/ The Commission was given the "same powers" as Congress, & its decisions could only be overridden if both houses of Congress agreed. That wasn't just to "audit" & let the states know what happened. It was to, as Cruz notes, "resolve the disputed returns."
6/ But the Electoral Count Act of 1887 was designed to remedy these problems. When the president of the senate reads a state's votes, there can be an objection, but both houses have to vote to sustain it.
7/ That means the presumption is in *favor* of counting the votes, & it minimizes the risk (like in 1877) that votes won't be counted.
8/ If there's more than one slate of electors, each house votes, & if they agree they count that slate. If they disagree, they count the slate with the governor's signature. Again, a presumption in favor of count--& of deference to any state canvass, recount, & contest.
9/ The Electoral Commission wasn't principally created to investigate "allegations of fraud." It was created to resolve disputes to prevent electoral votes from getting thrown out because of disagreement between the two houses.
