Four distinct paths for congressional Republicans in counting electoral votes

A lot of commentary over the last few weeks about Congress’s role in counting electoral votes that treats the decisions of members of Congress as binary: count, or object to counting. In reality, it’s a more subtle suite of options available to Republicans. There’s one option to count without protest formal, one option to count with some formal protest, and two options to refuse to count with some formal protest. Each could come with nuances depending on the state or the political situation. And there might be other objections other than “reject the counting of electoral votes,” but I’ll use that as shorthand for now. (And one could, of course, not vote, which adds further nuance, which maybe should be treated closer to a “nay” vote.)

Option One: Refuse to sign an objection, vote “nay” to rejecting the counting of electoral votes.

This is the most straightforward path that most Republicans and Democrats haven taken in 1969 and 2005 when objections were lodged and needed to be voted upon. One could take to the floor and express sympathy with the objection (as many Democrats did in 2005), but still refuse to sign onto the objection and vote “nay” at the end (i.e., vote in favor of counting the electoral votes).

Option Two: Sign an objection, vote “yea” to rejecting the counting of electoral votes.

This is the path of Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the only two who signed an objection to Ohio’s electoral votes in 2005. (And it was the position of 42 members of Congress in 1969.) Those who are filing an “objection” ensure two hours’ debate on that state’s electors. At the end of the debate is a vote on the objection. Typically, of course, if you signed the objection, you’d probably vote in favor of the objection. Typically—more on that in Option Four.

Option Three: Refuse to sign an objection, vote “yea” to rejecting the counting of electoral votes.

It only takes one senators and one representative to prompt two hours’ debate on a state’s electoral vote. Some members of Congress might hang back, then vote in favor of the objection at the end. While Ms. Tubbs Jones was the only signatory to an objection in 2005, 30 other House Democrats joined her in voting “yea” to reject counting of Ohio’s electoral votes.

Option Four: Sign an objection, vote “nay” to rejecting the counting of electoral votes.

This may seem like the strange scenario. Why sign the objection, then vote against it? But that happened in 1969. Senator Hugh Scott voted against his own objection. He signed the objection then voted "nay" on it. Representative William St. Onge & Senator Warren Magnuson signed the objection but did not vote (Magnuson at least was "absent on official business"). It’s possible that some members of Congress just want a two-hour window to air their grievances by means of the objection, then at the end of the day still vote to count the electoral vote.

*

There are more subtle permutations, there are alternative ways of looking at these votes, and it might vary by state. But these, I think, are four distinct paths for voting. (Of course, at the end of the day, no objection will be successful—maybe a topic for another time.)