As we near the end of 2022 and the second anniversary of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, Congress has the opportunity to pass much-needed reforms to the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The Electoral Count Act governs the process of casting and counting the Electoral College votes for president and vice president.

Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.

As the events of January 2021 made clear, the current law contains poorly drafted language governing critical aspects of the election certification process, leaving it vulnerable to exploitation. Attempting to take advantage of the ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act on January 6, the former president and his supporters asserted that the vice president could change the election outcome. This resulted in the worst attack on our Capitol since the British set it on fire in 1814.

To fix the Electoral Count Act and provide much-needed clarity for the process of counting electoral votes, Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin brought together a bipartisan group of senators over the past year to draft and introduce the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 this July. Under their leadership, this bill has secured wider bipartisan support, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

The Electoral Count Reform Act would ensure that the Electoral College votes tallied by Congress reflect the election results of each state’s popular vote for president. To do this, the bill provides some clarity on the roles and interactions between federal and state entities in this process. Specifically, the bill reiterates the role of the vice president is solely clerical and that they cannot unilaterally accept, reject, or adjudicate the validity of electors or electoral votes. The bill also raises the threshold for the required number of senators and representatives needed to object to electoral votes.

And to ensure that Congress can identify a single, conclusive slate of electors from each state, the Electoral Count Reform Act reiterates that electors must be appointed on Election Day and provides further definition of the narrow set of circumstances that are exceptions to this requirement.

Because of the bipartisan stewardship of these members, reforming the Electoral Count Act is close to crossing the finish line of this Congress. In September, the Senate Rules Committee voted to pass the Electoral Count Reform Act out of committee, a necessary step before a full Senate vote can happen, in a bipartisan vote of 14-1. And earlier that month, the House of Representatives passed the Presidential Election Reform Act in a bipartisan vote of 229-203. Introduced by Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Liz Cheney, the House bill reflects a similar general framework as the Senate legislation to update the Electoral Count Act, and is based on recommendations from the House Administration Committee, which is responsible for the oversight of federal elections and the day-to-day operations of the House of Representatives.

These bipartisan, bicameral efforts to reform and modernize the Electoral Count Act by senators and representatives is a prime example of what elected officials can do when they work together. Every American should be confident that the presidential election results from their states will be honored. Reforming the Electoral Count Act is the first step toward repairing our democracy and ensuring a peaceful transfer of power, which is a cornerstone of American democracy.

It’s time for Congress to pass the Electoral Count Reform Act and address the vulnerabilities in our electoral system. We hope that members will continue their commitment to set aside their party differences in the new Congress, and work to preserve our democracy and protect the will of the American people by passing legislation to ensure access to and protect the right to vote.

I have not always understood what it means to be transgender, and I did not always support transgender rights. But, as I watched my son Parker suffer, I learned more, and I keep trying every day to understand what he goes through. Seeing firsthand the benefits of gender-affirming healthcare for Parker has opened my eyes to see that this is definitely the right thing.

Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.

I wish I could say that my little dude has spent his entire life being comfortable in his own skin, but that is just not true for Parker. Before he started his gender-affirming medical care, Parker was depressed, anxious, and withdrawn. I worried for his safety. He wore 5 sports bras to cover his body and couldn’t bear to see himself in the mirror after a shower.

Like all of us, he just wants to look in the mirror and see the person that he is on the inside staring back at him so he can go about his day. We all want our kids to be happy and live their best, most productive lives, and this ban would really put up a roadblock for that to happen for Parker.

Gender-affirming health care has helped Parker become the happy, healthy, confident guy he is today. Now he’s funny, outgoing, and always ready to face the day. He loves being active in choir, with his friends, and volunteering in our community. His transformation has been amazing to watch. That’s what is so hard about other people trying to take away the medical care that has enabled him to be his best self. I am worried all the progress Parker has made could be undone.

This law does not protect kids. It is not what is best for teens, or for Arkansas. In our amazing community we are very supported — this is our shelter. If we are forced to leave our shelter for the unknown in another state, that’s the hardest part of this whole thing. If we go somewhere else, he will lose the safety and support of the community that we have here. This is Parker’s home. Parker should not have to leave his home to get his health care.

On March 16, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals left in place the district court’s preliminary injunction, reaffirming the serious injury posed to educators and students by the Stop W.O.K.E. Act. The ruling will prevent the law from being enforced in institutions of higher education, pending appeal.

Earlier this month, a federal judge blocked Florida from enforcing the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act (Stop W.O.K.E. Act) in the state’s colleges and universities. Florida is just one of over a dozen states across the country that have passed laws censoring discussions around race and gender in the classroom, and this is the first time a court has ruled that this type of classroom censorship law is unconstitutional. This preliminary victory could present an opportunity to bolster similar challenges to classroom censorship efforts nationwide.

The order came in a lawsuit we filed on behalf of seven instructors and one student in colleges and universities across Florida to challenge the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which limits the ways concepts related to systemic racism and sex discrimination can be discussed in teaching or conducting training in workplaces or schools. The concepts were parroted from Executive Order 13950, issued by then President Trump and rescinded by President Biden, and have been incorporated in similar classroom censorship laws introduced and passed in other states.

Show Up for Civil Liberties: Donate Now.
From free speech to reproductive freedom to immigrants' rights, the ACLU has shown up for over 100 years to protect civil liberties and civil rights for all — and we won't stop now. Donate today to help fund critical litigation, advocacy, and grassroots efforts.

We argued the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it restricts instructors from teaching and students from learning certain viewpoints, the law is unconstitutionally vague, and it intentionally discriminates against Black instructors and students. The order describes the law as “positively dystopian,” and makes the following key findings that could be leveraged to challenge similar classroom censorship legislation in other states:

In response to our lawsuit, Florida terrifyingly asserted that it had the absolute right to control what educators can teach because it is government speech, noting that university professors are public employees. This claim contradicts the longstanding recognition that academic freedom is a “special concern” of the First Amendment. In the university setting, this means the First Amendment protects universities’ and professors’ right to make teaching choices without government censorship targeting disfavored viewpoints. The state’s position that university instructors are “simply the state’s mouthpieces” could have dangerous consequences, including allowing the state to literally dictate lessons and have educators simply read from a script. The order held that educators’ First Amendment right to teach concepts prohibited by the Stop W.O.K.E. Act far outweighed the state’s interest in indoctrinating students to its preferred viewpoint.

The order recognized that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but also the right to receive information. In the higher education context, the court held that the scope of a student’s First Amendment right to receive information corresponds to the instructors’ First Amendment right to share.

The Stop W.O.K.E. Act limited instruction to viewpoints that the legislature agreed with, even when those viewpoints contradict research, academic scholarship, and foundational understandings of academic disciplines. Based on their academic training and research, our professor plaintiffs teach that some people are disadvantaged in America, and particularly in the criminal legal system, due to their race; describe the existence of “white privilege” and its impact in society; and advocate for affirmative action to ensure campus diversity. The Stop W.O.K.E. Act forced our professor plaintiffs to choose between teaching these evidence-supported concepts, which are foundational in their field, or censoring their viewpoints to comply with the law. As Judge Mark Walker noted, “[t]he law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints,” in contravention of the First Amendment.

First, the eight concepts prohibited by the law are vague. The order found that some of the prohibited concepts were impossible to interpret within the context of university instruction because of its complicated wording or ambiguous meaning. For example, the law permits discussion of these concepts if presented in an objective manner and without endorsement. However, the state argued that any promotion of the prohibited concepts would violate the law, so the state’s interpretation of “objectivity” was ambiguous because it only permits educators to present the concepts in a negative light. The court noted that professors could not organize a debate about the merits of affirmative action because any speaker that argued in favor of affirmative action would violate the Stop W.O.K.E. Act. The court also recognized that the lack of explicit standards about “objectivity” would allow arbitrary, and potentially discriminatory, enforcement of the law.

“Defendants try to dress up the State of Florida’s interest as a public employer and educator as prohibiting discrimination in university classrooms, but this does not give defendants a safe harbor in which to enforce viewpoint-based restrictions targeting protected speech,” wrote Judge Walker. Arguing that the Stop W.O.K.E. Act is an anti-discrimination law is a red herring. To be clear, education gag orders do not serve antidiscrimination purposes. They are thinly veiled speech restrictions without any attempt to limit discriminatory actions.

We are currently challenging classroom censorship laws in Florida, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire, and hope these findings will bolster these challenges and censorship efforts across the nation. We will not stop fighting for students’ and educators’ right to teach and learn free from state censorship and discrimination.