From the Fox article: Attorneys representing Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and the slate of Republican electors from Arizona indicated in a court filing that Vice President Mike Pence did not agree with their position that Pence could choose between counting the electoral votes of Democrats or Republicans from states where both parties had submitted votes, which would effectively allow him to decide who wins the election. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 (Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373, later codified at Title 3, Chapter 1[1]) is a United States federal law establishing procedures for the counting of electoral votes by Congress following a presidential election. The law was enacted ten years after the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock for weeks. Close elections in 1880 and 1884 followed, and again raised the possibility of an electoral dispute coming to Congress — or of partisans in Congress using the counting process to overturn the result.[2] After years of discussion, Congress passed the Act in 1887 and has followed the Act's procedures since then.[3] The Act aims to minimize Congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states.[2][3] The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these "safe harbor" standards and the state's governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that "final" determination "shall govern."[4][5] The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act's procedures.[6] Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not "regularly given."[6][7] The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election.[6] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act can bind a future Congress.[7] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session.[8] In the contentious 2000 presidential election, the law's timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[9]:643 Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "[i]ts central provisions seem contradictory."[10]:543 **Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President opens the electoral certificates in his capacity as President of the Senate. However, the Act constrains the Vice President's role in the count.[2][6] Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie.** On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party's — or his own — defeat. Richard Nixon, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, and Joe Biden all presided over the count that handed them, or their party, a loss.[11][12] Nixon graciously made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him.[13] Gore rejected many challenges to the disputed votes from Florida.[14] In 1968, Hubert Humphrey recused himself from the count.[15]