Report: Democrats Going All In to Take Iowa House Seat They Lost by Six Votes
The Democrats seem willing to do anything to get rid of their slim House majority.
A source told Politico‘s Playbook the Democrats are going all in to reverse the Republican victory in Iowa’s 2nd District. Mariannette Miller-Meeks defeated Rita Hart by six votes.
The Democrats have not taken a hard stance publically, but the source said the top people in the House Democratic leadership “blessed” the efforts to oust Miller-Meeks.
Mike covered previous stories about this contentious race:
- Republican Wins Iowa’s 2nd District Race by Just Six Votes, Flips Seat
- Democrat in Iowa 2nd District Race Goes to U.S. House of Representatives to Challenge Six Vote Loss
- Pelosi to “Provisionally Seat” Iowa Republican Despite Challenge From Democrat Who Lost By Six Votes
- House Committee Considering Measures That Would Reverse Iowa Race and Unseat Republican
- House Democrats Inch Closer to Overturning Iowa House Race and Unseating Republican Who Won
House Administration Chairwoman Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said the members of the panel “are keeping an open mind, nothing is predetermined and that Hart has the burden of proof.”
Interesting because the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) hired top election lawyer Marc Elias. The DCCC is also covering Hart’s legal fees:
Elias, who helped fight dozens of Trump’s frivolous election law claims in court this winter, doesn’t wade into any old House race. His presence alone signals that Democratic leaders want to take this all the way and flip the seat into Democrats’ control.
“Federal law provides that this contest is the proper avenue to ensure that all legal ballots are counted and we have presented credible evidence to support their inclusion in the final tally,” Elias said in a statement provided by the DCCC.
Democrats maintain that the House Admin’s rulings and the motivations of the DCCC are two different things — but it would be politically naive to believe that. The judge in this case is essentially the prosecutor — and yes, this is totally allowed under the Constitution.
Hart insists the election has 22 valid and uncounted ballots that could give her the victory:
In their filing to the committee, Ms. Hart’s legal team maintained 22 legal ballots haven’t been counted, saying 18 were cast for Ms. Hart, enough to reverse the outcome. Those ballots included some that were cast through curbside voting but not accepted by the voting machine; absentee ballots that weren’t counted because they were in a box that was marked with a lower number of ballots than it actually contained, leading to confusion; and one absentee ballot that wasn’t counted because the signature was in the wrong location on the envelope.
Democrats threw a fit and lashed out at Republicans who claimed President Joe Biden stole President Donald Trump’s election.
Now the opposite has happened, but Trump did one thing different than Hart:
Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, the top Republican on the committee, questioned why Ms. Hart hadn’t pursued her challenge through Iowa’s court system and said Democrats were being hypocritical.
“You cannot complain about anyone questioning election certificates again if you’re willing to do the same with a duly elected member, especially since Rita Hart did not finish the court process in Iowa,” he told reporters.
Democrats brushed off the criticism because Biden’s victory has “little evidence of voter fraud or irregularities that could change the outcomes”
Okay, how about the NY-22 fiasco? Republican Claudia Tenney ousted Democrat Rep. Anthony Brindisi by about 110 votes. It took three months to figure out that mess.
But the candidates went through the courts.
Hart’s lawyer whined, “that exhausting the state judicial process isn’t a requirement for challenging the election in the House.”
Maybe you should have done it from the beginning like Tenney and Brindisi?
But not all Democrats are on board:
Rank-and-file Democrats said that while reviewing the Iowa race was appropriate, they would be wary of overturning the state’s results.
“The standard has to be a very high standard,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D., Mich.) “Unless we see compelling evidence that there’s something seriously wrong, then we should defer to state and local officials.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sounds pretty serious. I would take them for their word.
People, this is not a drill. This is real. That is, this is not fake, and they have every intention of pulling this theft off. Because they have no morals, they have no shame, and they deny God.
They don’t seem to be posturing.
Who will be the next victim.
If you know what I mean and I think you do.
IYKWIMAITYD
Has Stacey Abrams “weighed in” on this?
Given they just stole the Presidency, we should not doubt they will steal a Congressional seat.
Democrats are cancer. End of discussion.
They are vile. Locusts. A plague upon this country and upon the world.
You can only contest an election they left loses. Otherwise, you’re a RACIST
The seat is only a 2 year term. This is not at all about flipping a seat when they already have the majority. This is about setting a precedent for a power grab. These people are drunk with power and completely immune to self-reflection.
Well, why not? The Franz von Papen Republicans have already shown that they will not fight for honest elections, no matter how egregious and blatant the theft is. The Communists just stole the presidential election, so what is a House seat compared to that?
Stolen elections have consequences. So does cowardice in the face of totalitarianism.
“Rank-and-file Democrats said that while reviewing the Iowa race was appropriate, they would be wary of overturning the state’s results.”
Yeah, sure! When Steny and Miss Nancy say jump these lemmings will ask “how high?” and vote as directed.
They had best remember that what goes around comes around, and every dog has its day.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Hey Milhouse tell me again how this is all for show and that I’m fucking full of shit when I say the democrats are deadly serious about these things. Go ahead, I dare you. In fact, I double dog dare you.
The fact of the matter is the democrat party is deadly serious about such things. They will do anything and everything to cement their positions and power in the Congress and White House. And they do it not out of some highfalutin principle, they do it out of vengeance and spite. And the worst part? The democrat party doesn’t care who knows it. Because they know full well that the Republicans don’t have the balls to call them on their atrocious actions and behaviors. They’ll sit there and watch the downfall and destruction of the Republic and then wonder what the hell just happened as they make bewildered speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.
But yeah, just keep on telling people it’s all for show. After all, what’s the harm in that.
Lucifer, go to Hell. You are a fucking liar. I never said, suggested, or indirectly hinted that the move against Miller-Meeks is for show. Obviously it is serious, but there is reason to believe it will be honest. The reason is simply the fact that they chose to seat Miller-Meeks provisionally, which they had absolutely no obligation to do. If they meant to throw her out no matter what, then why would they have done that?
Another indication that they intend to have an honest investigation is the fact that the DCCC has called in the big guns. The very fact that this article cites as somehow proving shenanigans actually indicates the opposite. If the result was a foregone conclusion then why would Marc Elias get involved, and why would the DCCC pay his high fees? The only reasonable explanation is that they know it won’t be handed to them on a tray, and if they want to win they have to make their case.
The motion to expel Greene, however, is pure show. They know it is absolutely impossible for it to succeed, therefore by definition it is not a serious attempt to expel her. It’s purpose is to posture for the base, and therefore one can’t be sure all the signatories would expel her if they were actually able to. This is exactly the argument you made repeatedly about Republicans voting to repeal 0bamacare when they knew it couldn’t pass, but changing their view when it could.
Milhouse, you know very well this is inappropriate and unacceptable: “Lucifer, go to Hell. You are a fucking liar.” Stop it. I am not removing it only because you go on to make solid points, but please refrain from this sort of attack on a fellow LI reader. We are on the same team (well, most of us are, and definitely LM).
Fuzzy, I am sick and tired of being the target of an unrestrained vicious campaign of lies and vilification. You know well that I never take things personal, but when someone attacks me and lies about me and defames me, I have the right to stand up for myself and call them out for it. If you as a moderator are going to allow these lies to continue then what other choice do you leave me?
Lucifer and I are not on the same team; he is on the team of the Prince of Lies and Slander, for whom he has named himself. You shouldn’t be on his team either.
I hear you, Milhouse, and as a ‘for the record’ aside, I love your comments, even when I disagree with them. I think you do have a right to defend yourself, but please do it without personal insults (and offering unsolicited end of life advice). Instead, just defend your position, or at the very least, stop at “you’re a liar.” 😛 It’s fine to defend a position, even say someone is lying, but we don’t want our comment section to become an ad hominem free-for-all. You know this and usually stick to the rules no matter how provoked.
By the same token, if you think a comment is unfairly targeting you on a personal and vitriolic level, please let us know (I’m not the only mod, of course, so I don’t read every comment posted), and we will remove those comments, too. Alternatively, you can send me an email, and I will look into it for you.
As to the rest, please just put some faith in your fellow LI readers. We’re a discerning lot, after all. 😛
After two impeachment’s and a stolen election, this should be easy. Dems gone wild.
This is textbook Democrat Tactics; keep counting votes until the desired results occur. Tried and true.
And just wait until “voter” ballots are accepted for two weeks after the election.
If votes and elections are no longer legitimate, why would anyone consider the decision of who is seated in office to be legitimate?
Subotai Bahadur
If votes and elections are no longer legitimate, why do we even bother with elections. Just have the congressional leadership appoint the people they want and be done with it.
There is actually a very good chance that any further elections in this country will be Stalinist.
Subotai Bahadur
In the USSR, there was one candidate on the ballot.
We are much better off–we get two.
Abstain from beans.
This is exactly what you would expect to see if Lofgren were telling the truth, and not at all what you would expect to see if she were lying. If the panel’s mind were made up, why would the DCCC hire such an expensive lawyer to make Hart’s case? If the result is a foregone conclusion they should send in some intern to go through the motions, or even “nobly” stay out of the process and “let the chips fall as they may”. If they’re fighting hard, they must believe they need to.
On the contrary. Of course they are two different things. The panel’s job is to conduct an honest investigation, regardless of how its members hope it will turn out. The DCCC’s job is to argue zealously for one outcome. The judge is not the prosecutor; the judge represents the same party as one of the litigators, something that is completely normal in election contests before partisan bodies, including courts in states where those are partisan.
That’s not whining, it’s a simple statement of fact. Exhausting the state judicial process isn’t a requirement, so by what right does anyone demand that Hart have done it? She decided she was better off doing it this way, and we will see whether it pays off.
If they go through with this every Democrat involved needs a ban from all committee assignments and to be refused permission to speak during congressional sessions if we win in 2024.
She had a judicial system and transition period she could have used if she thought she actually won; just like Trump she didn’t but unlike Trump Nancy Pelosi could actually overturn Republic in her case.
Which is why we need to play hardball.
You steal our seat your ability to sit on committee or speak at all during the next congress doesn’t exist, you are no longer permitted any input into bills so the bacon every congressman is required to bring home won’t exist.
The result was called on November 30. Hart announced on December 2 that she was taking it to the House, as was her absolute right. Why should she have taken it to some other forum? Is the House the judge of its members’ elections, or is it not? The constitution says it is, so that should be that.
And if the Republicans had won the house she wouldn’t have taken it to the house, and wouldn’t have taken it to a judge either because she has no case (which is why you would claim your election was stolen and not take the claim to court). She made as you just conceded a choice to say F the judiciary I will rely on my political buddies to seat me even though I lost the race. That is a threat to our Republican Tradition.
It is not her right, no more than it is Donald Trump’s right to demand VP Mike Pence refuse to read electoral votes that aren’t consistent with him winning. The standard of “did he/she break the law therefore the behavior is acceptable” is wrong both in Trump’s case and this failed congressional candidates case, it is exactly the same behavior in both cases.
In these procedural things, Zoe Lofgren is very dangerous. We’re lucky Jerrold Nadler was still the head of the House Judiciary Committee. If he’d lost in 2020, Lofgren would have become the chair, and the impeachment could have been scary.
The Republicans should go scorched-earth against this crew. Find some male staffer to say Lofgren sexually harassed him or something.