Even though Democrats and some Republicans are pushing for amending the ECA 1887 (now codified under 3 U.S. Code § 15) under the claim that it's in response to the "DeAdLiESt DaY iN AMeRiCan HiStoRy!", it's long overdue.

Historical background:

The 1887 legislation is a shitshow, and much of it is unconstitutional (see Beermann & Lawson, Kesavan, and Luttig & Rivkin, in particular Congress bestowing upon itself powers not granted to it under the Constitution. Congress is a legislative body, not a judicial body. Just because Congress claimed for itself the exclusive power to resolve presidential election disputes, that doesn't mean the Constitution actually authorizes such action. The argument is "necessary and proper" clause authorizes the law, BUT that's only for "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution." There is no such explicitly enumerated power of "presidential election dispute resolution" granted to Congress in Article I, nor anything close to indicating any such implied powers. The fact of the matter is that this is a JUDICIAL matter, which should be left to the theoretically impartial courts. The 1876 Electoral Commission was actually a far better, and far more constitutionally valid action (aside from the involvement of Congressmen being on the "Tribunal") than the ECA 1887. And least at that time, the Court was rightly involved. It took 100 years for SCOTUS to vindicate Justice Harlan's dissent in Taylor v Beckham, by fully overturning (via Bush v Gore) the nonsensical theory that federal courts had no jurisdiction in settling presidential election disputes, which in 1900 they deemed to be "political issues."

Tldr; dispute resolutions are matters of applying the law, and are the responsibility of the Judiciary. ECA 1887 was mostly unconstitutional and much of it was just stupidly designed.

Here are the current House and Senate bill drafts. The "Findings" bullshit in the House version is indeed, comical...

the single most deadly attack on the Capitol by domestic forces in the history of the United States.

Actually, no, that would be the Battle of Fort Stevens when actual rebellious traitors under Jubal Early's (Lost Cause shithead) command threatened Washington DC... but I digress...

It appears that it's fairly likely that some version of these bills are going to be passed into law. Some of the proposed changes are shockingly fairly smart (and legal), including the setting of specific December deadlines (14th = gov certification, 22nd = Electors vote), dealing with "catastrophic events", and other procedural clarifications.

HOWEVER, the two biggest issues, are the explicit rendering of the President of the Senate (aka VP, except in cases of vacancy) and even Congress to an extent, serving a purely ministerial function. Despite what some MAGAs claimed in 2021, what the Republicans in Congress and Rutherford B. Hayes claimed in 1876, and what both Jefferson and Adams did in 1800/1796, the President of the Senate was only ever intended to be the presiding officer, to act in a ministerial capacity, to preserve order. The problem is that the 12th Amendment never made that explicitly clear, hence the 220 year debate over the role and authority. But the Constitution cannot just be changed via federal statute. Rather, it must be amended. The same problem exists with this attempt to maintain Congress as the "court" to rule on matters of settling disputes. The Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do so. Rather, all judicial actions are reserved to the Courts. Congress DOES have the Article I, Section 8 power to establish Tribunals (which could be both temporary and/or permanent to deal with election disputes... see the conclusion in the book Ballot Battles for more). But if the people truly want the most politically partisan cesspool of shitfuckers to be authorized to investigate and deliberate over presidential election disputes, then the Constitution must be amended.

Tldr; this is basically 1887 all over again... just more bullshit, not real fixes.

Edit: one interesting take on a couple sections of proposed changes indicates the potential "authorizing" of a "losing candidate" to challenge in court...

"The bill allows the presidential candidate who lost to challenge a state’s certification of electors in federal courts on an expedited basis. Challenges would be heard by a three-judge panel with the option of a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court."

If that's correct, perhaps this is explicitly confirming a "legal" route (that technically already exists) to prevent another steal down the road by actually forcing the Court to do its job instead of claiming "lack of standing"? If this is correct and this becomes law, could Trump then use it retroactively to see remedy from the Courts for the 2020 steal? hmmmm