House Committee Considering Measures That Would Reverse Iowa Race and Unseat Republican
“The House Administration Committee gathered virtually Friday afternoon to finalize the process by which it will adjudicate Hart’s claim”
Questioning the outcome of the 2020 election is forbidden unless you’re a Democrat. Just six votes decided the race for Iowa’s 2nd District, and Republican Marianette Miller-Meeks won.
Democrat candidate Rita Hart appealed directly to the Democrat-controlled House, and now, weeks later, they are actually considering measures that would reverse the outcome.
Chris Enloe reports at The Blaze:
House takes first step in contested election review that may result in Republican being unseated
The Democrat-controlled House took the first steps last week of adjudicating a contested House seat that may result in a Republican lawmaker being replaced by her Democratic challenger.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) was declared the winner of Iowa’s second congressional district over Democratic challenger Rita Hart last November by just six votes — 196,964 to 196,958.
After Iowa certified Miller-Meeks’ win, Hart appealed to the House by filing a Notice of Contest. Hart’s campaign alleged that “the Miller-Meeks campaign has sought to keep legitimate votes from being counted — pushing to disqualify and limit the number of Iowans whose votes are counted,” the Iowa City Press-Citizen reported.
Hart claims there are 22 “legally-cast, uncounted votes” from her election — and, of course, she alleges that if those votes are counted, she would be the rightful winner of the contest…
The House Administration Committee gathered last Friday to establish the process by which Hart’s claims will be adjudicated.
Politico reported, “The Friday meeting was brief. Members unanimously agreed to a resolution that establishes procedures the committee will abide by as it considers recent elections contested under the act.”
Ally Mutnick of Politico has more:
The House Administration Committee gathered virtually Friday afternoon to finalize the process by which it will adjudicate Hart’s claim, which was filed under the Federal Contested Elections Act. The committee has been largely silent since Hart first made her contest in December, but the hearing suggests that it is preparing to review the matter further.
In question is the outcome of just one district — but Democrats hold only a five-seat majority in the House, making even a small change in numbers significant…
“We are glad to see the House Committee on Administration taking action towards ensuring that every legally-cast vote is counted in this race and that all Iowans’ voices are heard,” Hart campaign manager Zach Meunier said in a statement. “Every legal voter in this country has a right to have their ballot counted and the remedy here is clear — count the ballots.”
By Democrat standards, isn’t this a dangerous threat to our democracy? Haven’t we been told for months that questioning the election’s outcome threatens the peaceful transfer of power?
The fact that Democrats would even think about revisiting this race is an insult to the entire country.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Nothing short of a physical beat-down is going to set the Democrats straight.
Time for another Capitol “visit”?
They are ready for that, unless you can get to them personally they won’t be reasoned with. Next best thing, relentlessly harass family, friends, neighbors and pets. Make them unwelcome anywhere and everywhere.
“We are glad to see the House Committee on Administration taking action towards ensuring that every legally-cast vote is counted”
More like illegally-cast. Election fraud continues.
JusticeDelivered: More like illegally-cast.
Actually, the voters involved seemed to be legitimately trying to exercise the franchise.
https://kwwl.com/2021/01/03/rita-hart-at-least-22-legally-cast-ballots-in-iowas-2nd-congressional-district-were-not-counted/
Yes, Zach, overruling a state electoral process and adding 22 cherry picked votes are definitely the way to ensure a fair election…in a banana republic.
How does your hive mind reconcile this nonsense? It was a close race…cherry picking votes to win a recount is an old Dem ploy dating back to the despicable Al Franken and beyond. You aren’t fooling anyone by pretending this is about disenfranchised voters.
healthguyfsu: overruling a state electoral process and adding 22 cherry picked votes are definitely the way to ensure a fair election
You’re saying not to count valid ballots? Is that your position?
Can someone explain to me how this works? We can’t get a recount even though we have showed the voter fraud. But because they lost and they have a demon crat house yes we can overturn it even though a judge said she won and was seated. More fraud by the demon crats
purpledog: We can’t get a recount even though we have showed the voter fraud.
There have been multiple recounts, including a statewide hand recount in Georgia. No significant voter fraud has been shown.
As has been said many times, it’s OK to contest a vote. Unless you’re a Republican. And as I’ve pointed out during the controversy over the November 3rd election, if the Constitutional system established for “redress of grievances” is itself corrupted by DNC Machine operatives in the form of judges in multiple levels of the Judiciary, WTF is left for us to get justice for wrongs committed against not just us but US, America herself, everyone of US? This isn’t going to end well.
northerner777: if the Constitutional system established for “redress of grievances” is itself corrupted by DNC Machine operatives in the form of judges in multiple levels of the Judiciary
The Supreme Court refused to intervene, and they are stacked 6-3 Republican-appointees, with three even appointed by Trump. That suggests there is no legal case to be made.
If ever there was a time for a crowd with pitch-forks, burning torches, and lots of tar standing outside the state house, this is it.
Change stare house to capitol building.
After Biden issues an Executive Order negating the second amendment, pitchforks and torches will be classified as “arms” and therefore outlawed.
I thought election challenges were beyond the pale.
Like the Dems care about insulting the country.
Oh, they do. It’s one of their greatest joys.
Fixed that for you. They don’t care about the country. They only care about power and maintaining that power at any cost. Even if it means destroying the country.
According to the SCOTUS the challenge is moot because the election is over.
that was different…
besides, we are no longer a nation of laws: didn’t you get the memo?
No, it isn’t. There is no comparison between the two cases.
I humbly suggest you improve your command of the language of sarcasm, irony, and dark humor in general.
Didn’t the Supreme Court just tell us that revisiting election procedure after an election was certified makes the case….Moot?
That only applies when it is Republicans challenging the outcome of an election. According to the SCOTUS Republicans can’t challenge an election before, during, or after the election occurs. But it’s fine when democrats do it.
Antifundamentalist: Didn’t the Supreme Court just tell us that revisiting election procedure after an election was certified makes the case….Moot?
The election procedure isn’t in dispute, but the procedure for counting votes, which occurs after the election.
In the presidential race both the legality of ballots and the method for counting them was challenged.
stl: In the presidential race both the legality of ballots and the method for counting them was challenged.
That’s right. Those are post-election issues. The issue was rules for casting ballots. If voters cast ballots in good-faith based on rules in place at the time of the election, then their ballots should be counted.
But when the rules are changed like in the state of Pennsylvania where changing the rules on voting and mail in voting was made illegally buy the democrat in charge without going thru the process of going thru the house system to change those rules. Then your saying they shouldn’t be counted by your standards
purpledog: But when the rules are changed like in the state of Pennsylvania where changing the rules on voting and mail in voting was made illegally buy the democrat in charge without going thru the process of going thru the house system to change those rules.
Any challenge to the rules should be made before ballots are cast. But you should be specific. To which rule changes are you referring?
No, it didn’t. The constitution explicitly authorizes each house to be the judge of its members’ elections.
So in other words, Hart wants an unelected federal committee to overturn the certified election for the Iowa 2nd district and appoint her as the actual winner of the House seat.
So would someone please explain to me under what authority the “Committee on House Administration” has to undo a certified state election result, remove a legally elected Representative who has already taken the oath of office and has assumed her duties as a Representative, and replace her with another person? Because I can’t find the law that gives them that authority.
They don’t but if anyone sues on that basis, it will be found that they lack standing. Also, the point is moot. Plus, there is no evidence of any impropriety, how dare you say that, you racist?
Lucifer Morningstar: So would someone please explain to me under what authority the “Committee on House Administration” has to undo a certified state election result, remove a legally elected Representative who has already taken the oath of office and has assumed her duties as a Representative, and replace her with another person? Because I can’t find the law that gives them that authority.
U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 5, clause 1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members
Then it is something that needs to be brought up before the House and debated and voted upon. It shouldn’t be left to some “committee” to decide. It should be decided by the actual members of the House. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Lucifer Morningstar: Then it is something that needs to be brought up before the House and debated and voted upon.
That’s how the House works according to its rules. The committee will hash out the issue. If they find reason to support the challenge, they can refer it to the whole body.
But with Madam Chang Kai Pelosi on the throne and the DNC majority, just what is the logical outcome of that debate if it even gets that far? “Suck it up sweetie, you’re out so says we the ruling party. Because we can. Because we won”. ?
northerner777: just what is the logical outcome of that debate if it even gets that far?
There are political restraints on Democrats. In any case, shouldn’t all legal votes be counted?
The House has done this before, in an Indiana race in the 60s or 70s. I knew when the Dems’ margin dropped to five that the Republican will lose her seat. I’m surprised the loser in the Claudia Tenney race didn’t try the same thing.
I don’t know what is worst, the BS the Democrats pull or the fact that the media doesn’t cover it.
First Law of Rigged and Stolen Elections in America….
Democrats win almost all close elections. By any means necessary.
What happened in 2000 with GWB was a wake-up call for Dems. They’ll never let that happen again. Besides that, we now know GWB was essentially a right leaning Dem.
Trump’s win in 2016 was an anomaly. They didn’t take him seriously and were unprepared. They’ll never let that happen again.
I look at the 2016 election as their wakeup call. They learned big time when Hillary lost that whatever measures they tried were totally ineffective. They came back this election with all graft and corruption vaults and guns blazing. They either seriously threatened any possible judges that would hear any complaints or they had in previous years provided enough DNC operative judges to guarantee that no complaint would be heard nor any piece of evidence of election fraud will be reviewed. Their BS worked. And as we’ve all said, no election after this will ever be trusted as legitimate unless the questions are resolved. Not looking likely that will happen.
The Franz von Papen Republicans continue to reap what they have sown. By November 4 2020 it was obvious that Trump had won re-election and that the Communists were working feverishly to steal the election, yet the GOP leadership (not to mention a huge portion of the Congressional rank-and-file) eagerly colluded with Communists to deliver the country into the hands of the Biden* administration.
The von Papen Republicans who though that they could get rid of the hated Trump AND roar back into power in 2022 should re-think the “winning by losing” strategy. Stolen elections have consequences. Or is it really possible that the von Papen Republicans sincerely believe that the Communists will suddenly give up violence and cheating and graciously accept defeat from now on?
Well, the Democrats stole the Presidency with little resistance, why not the House and the Senate?
The elections are for the little people, the outcomes are for the elite.
Excellent, so now the battleground states can do the same for the Senators right? If GA finds that there was fraud, they can unseat 2 Democrat senators.
Also, let’s unseat the presidential electors that were certified by state governors and replace them with those sent by the legislatures, and unseat Biden.
I’m liking this move from Iowa more and more.
This isn’t “Iowa”. It’s a standing committee of the U.S. House of Representatives:
https://cha.house.gov
The committee has 6 Demonrats and 3 Republicans. It will probably recommend to the full House that representative Miller-Meeks should be unelected. The house will probably vote along party lines to do just that.
Because they feel like it.
Why does the oversight committee have 6D and 3R when the numbers in the House would suggests 5D and 4R?
Because that’s how it works. The majority decides how many committee spots the minority will get. That’s how it works with R majorities too.
Iowa has nothing to do with this move. This is a house of representatives committee taking this action.
GA has no authority to judge the election of its senators. Only the senate can do that.
And the presidential election is over. It happened on Dec 14, and nothing can change the result. You can’t unseat electors because they don’t have seats; the electoral college elected in 2020 has cast its votes and no longer exists.
What is the problem here?
A candidate contested an election result as per the procedure the law prescribes.
The committee cannot opt to not proceed according to the law governing the process. Unless they decide to disenfranchise the voters by ignoring the certified and judicially uncontested result this seems to be the only possible way forward.
Does anyone know if the decision to overturn the certified result needs a supermajority?
felixrigidus: Unless they decide to disenfranchise the voters by ignoring the certified and judicially uncontested result this seems to be the only possible way forward.
The allegation is that 22 ballots were improperly excluded from the count.
felixrigidus: Does anyone know if the decision to overturn the certified result needs a supermajority?
Simple majority.
An allegation that was not made before a court. Why would that be? Obviously, the Democrat asking her friends to overturn the election hopes to find enough rogue Democrat factionalists in the House to illegally overturn the decision of the voters and knows she has no prayer in a court of law.
Still, while the House is tasked to judge its decision is not according to the will but according to the judgment of the Representatives. It has to stay within the bounds of the Constitution and applicable law, and the House has no authority to violate the Constitution or the law. They are not acting as lawgivers here.
As for the majority gets to decide, that could prove a very dangerous flaw. I guess the founders thought that no Congress would dare to violate the rights of the citizenry and unlawfully unseat for purely partisan reason an elected representative.
The House went down a very dangerous and dark path by removing a minority member from a committee with a simple majority vote without the minority moving to remove its member.
felixrigidus: An allegation that was not made before a court.
If there is a viable path through the state courts, then that is where the challenge should be heard before invoking the Federal Contested Elections Act. Every legal vote should be counted.
You know there is, in fact, a viable path through the state courts and it has not been exercised. It wasn’t even attempted.
healthguyfsu: You know there is, in fact, a viable path through the state courts
That is not clear. The state has a deadline of December 8, apparently not enough time to conduct a recount and review of the ballots, so the challenger may have decided a federal remedy under the Federal Contested Elections Act was their best course of action.
IMO, the HoR should have exercised it’s power to ‘seat’ or refuse to ‘seat’ prior to sweating in.
Of course, that action would have undercut the d/progressive narrative about how all aspects of the 2020 election cycle in every State and precinct were totes ok and questioning that was ‘destroying our norms’.
Just my opinion but the HoR and a candidate should be forced into the following scenario:
1. Mount the challenge to the HoR
2. Present the facts and the HoR makes a call
3. Prior to seating any ‘winner’
4. All parties understand that a challenge will result in no representation for the Congressional District in question until resolved.
This might preclude some of the questionable challenges in the future as this changes the political calculus.
CommoChief: IMO, the HoR should have exercised it’s power to ‘seat’ or refuse to ‘seat’ prior to sweating in.
Speaker of the HOuse Pelosi provisionally seated Miller-Meaks per standard practice.
Zach
I know why the HoR seated a member ‘provisionally’. Hopefully your explanation will assist others.
I was stating an opinion regarding what is, in my view, a much better and more straightforward process that ensures everyone, including the constituents, have ‘skin in the game from the outset.
Because it begins with no representation for the district this elevates the issue. Will a majority of the opposite political party wish to deprive a ‘swing/purple’ district of representation to entertain a challenge?
Will that challenge succeed? Will the challenger end their political future because of the challenge? IMO, all of that should be highlighted up front by not seating anyone until a final determination is made. Then, if the HoR spends the a month or more, as here, before even beginning the review that majority party will be subject to voter discontent.
CommoChief: Because it begins with no representation for the district this elevates the issue.
That wouldn’t be fair to the constituents who deserve representation in Congress. The results were certified by the state, so there is no reason not to seat Miller-Meeks provisionally per standard practice.
If the HoR (Pelosi, to be honest) had refused to seat a Republican, she would have been absolutely swarmed by similar demands from the fringe-left of the party to not seat every single Republican who voted in a way the Dems didn’t like.
In a way, the point about refusing seating is moot due to the Powell v. McCormack decision which generally said “If the State certifies them as elected, and they meet the Constitutional requirements, they have to be seated, period.” They can be removed later by House actions, but they’re seated until removed.
As far as I can tell (non-lawyer here) from the Federal Contested Elections Act, the House can somehow-or-other by *majority* (not supermajority) vote declare the position vacant and demand the State carry out another vote, but as far as I can tell, the House has no authority over the State in this regard, and Iowa can just say “No, this is the Representative. Deal with it.”
georgfelis: In a way, the point about refusing seating is moot due to the Powell v. McCormack decision which generally said “If the State certifies them as elected, and they meet the Constitutional requirements, they have to be seated, period.”
Powell v. McCormack applies to members “duly elected.” The question at issue is whether Miller-Meeks is duly elected.
Or as we read deeper into this, the cherry picking of the 20 votes. Tee article describes other votes not counted. These 20 look good for the opponent, wonder what the others entail.
seamusmeboy: These 20 look good for the opponent, wonder what the others entail.
Attorneys for the incumbent have every right to examine ballots for errors in the count. That’s how the process works. If there are valid votes uncounted, then they should be counted. Or are you saying they should be discarded?
This year we learned all about “Lack of standing” and “moot.”
To any sane person, yes, just like Trump. To a democrat, nothing beats turning the law and spirit of the law on their head.
Not true. The Powell decision said the exact opposite. The House and only the House can decide whether someone was elected. The state certification is irrelevant.
Had the House said that Powell was not elected from his district, he would not have had a case. But it didn’t do that. It agreed that he had been elected, but it just didn’t want to seat him. The court said that’s not how it works. If you have no doubt about his election you have to seat him, and then, if you like, you can have a vote to expel him, and if you get 2/3 he’s gone.
The main point of contention was that the vote not to seat him had been by 2/3, so the House said to the court why don’t you just consider that as a vote to expel. And the court said we can’t do that because that’s not what happened. You can’t hold a vote on one thing and then pretend it was on something else. If you want to expel him hold a vote on that, but we don’t believe you’d get 2/3 if you did that.
Can Demcorats abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?
The Republicans won, the Democrats lost, and neither side elected to ask for a court ruling. Hart’s petitioning of Democrats in Congress to overrule Iowa voters is to ask for the abolition of democracy. Given fraud allegations already circulating, and the Times’ boasting about ‘fortifying’ the result against President Trump, this would seem to be an act of pouring
gasolinedynamite onto a fire. Are Democrats really that tone deaf?“Are Democrats really that tone deaf?”
Yes.
Following the constitution is abolishing democracy?! Nowhere in the constitution are courts given a role in this. The constitution says the House should decide.
Note you have to distort petition to overrule the voters to mean petition to follow the constitution to come to the ridiculous conclusion. And I think you can agree that the constitution does not simply say “the House should decide” but also talks about certain quaint notions—and maybe one could also glean something from the very name of the House of Representatives.
The name of the very House hints at what is expressly stated: the Representatives are elected by the People of the several States. The House of Representatives is Judge of the Elections of its own members, and it can make laws with respect to those elections. But when it is Judge it does not make law, it is not authorized to exercise will but only judgment.
If you take issue with the contention that Hart asks to overrule the voters, say so. But if that is, in fact, what Hart is asking for, clearly she asks the House not to be Judge of the Election but instead to be the electorate. If the House acts as elector instead of as Judge of the Election it is both patently unconstitutional and obviously not in line with democratic and republican principles.
So tell me when the vote will take place in the House to decide this matter. Please provide the date and the time this vote will happen. The select few on the “Committee on House Administration” cannot make this decision themselves. It must go to a full vote of the House. So provide the date and time this vote will take place.
It’s a congressional committee. By definition it is elected.
She’s not asking the committee to do that, she’s asking the House to do it. Its authority to do that is explicitly in the constitution. The House, of course, has referred it to the appropriate committee. How else did you imagine this is supposed to work?
You might as well ask what authority the “Senate Committee on the Judiciary” has to confirm judges. The answer is it doesn’t; the senate does, and the senate refers all nominations to the appropriate committee to consider.
No, she is asking a “committee” to make that decision. The House isn’t involved in the decision. If they were it would be debated and voted upon by every member of the House instead of a select few on the “Committee on House Administration”>
So when is the vote of the House going to happen to decide whether or not the Republican (who has been legally elected and sworn in and has taken up her duties) will be removed and replaced by the democrat.
Tell me when that vote of the House is going to occur.
Lucifer Morningstar: If they were it would be debated and voted upon by every member of the House instead of a select few on the “Committee on House Administration”
The House makes its own rules. They have delegated different issues to various committees. In this case, the committee can make a recommendation whether or not to send the matter to the whole body for final dispensation.
Lucifer Morningstar: So when is the vote of the House going to happen to decide whether or not …
No one knows at this point when or even if the committee will make a recommendation to the whole body of the House.
Lucifer Morningstar: the Republican (who has been legally elected and sworn in and has taken up her duties) will be removed and replaced by the democrat.
Per the rules of the House, the swearing in was provisional. In the meantime, Miller-Meeks’s votes will count as the official representative of her district — which is why she was appropriately seated by Speaker Pelosi.