And it,

again, to the point of objections would go a bit further in terms of actually enumerating very specific grounds, but again within the same sort of general category as the Senate bill.

So there's some sort of definitional difference there.

One difference is that, you know, sort of going back to where we started, the changes that the Senate bill would make to the current section two and the concept of a failed election, the House bill would similarly get rid of that concept and allow for extended voting in very narrow circumstances. It adds more definition than

the Senate bill, but is essentially, especially now with the

amendments that were made more recently to the Senate bill, sort of get at the same kind of idea of force-major catastrophic events that are sort of outside unexpected and outside the

control of administrators and elections.

One other difference is that the House bill

would provide for a role for the federal courts in sort of serving a little bit of a gatekeeping function

before an election can be extended under those circumstances. And so that that respect, it's sort of different procedurally than the Senate bill, which provides the parameters, but then otherwise leads it to state law to sort of work out the details. You know, I did the other difference, I think I'd point out between the House and Senate bill is that the House bill would sort of change the dates of the certification by the governor and then the subsequent meeting of the Electoral College just a bit, build in

a little bit more time between the two, but again,

you know, whether or

not these differences are big or small is a little bit subjective.