Some Democrats Balk at House Leadership’s Plan to Steal Iowa Seat
“It strikes me as remarkably hypocritical and a dangerous precedent at a time we need to be repairing precedents.”
A Politico article detailed how Democrats have been working behind the scenes to snatch Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District seat since the Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks won by six votes.
Republicans lashed out at the plan, but so did Democrats—lots of them.
I’ll let the Democrats speak for themselves.
Losing a House election by six votes is painful for Democrats. But overturning it in the House would be even more painful for America. Just because a majority can, does not mean a majority should. https://t.co/pXaOYBIMue
— Rep. Dean Phillips ?? (@RepDeanPhillips) March 22, 2021
From colleague Paul Steinhauser. Dem NH Rep Pappas on Dem probe into IA02 race: "This election result was certified by the State of Iowa and Rep. Miller-Meeks was sworn in nearly three months ago..it’s time to move on."
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) March 23, 2021
Pennsylvania Rep. Susan Wild: “As I have said before in connection with the 2020 presidential election, legislators should be heeding states’ certifications of their elections. Unless there is rampant error and substantial evidence thereof, I do not believe it is the role of House members to dictate the outcome of elections.”
California Rep. Lou Correa: “This is an issue that states should have primary responsibility in determining the outcome of the election. The state of Iowa certified it, and that’s what should stand.”
Two moderate Democrats provided anonymous statements to The Hill:
“It strikes me as remarkably hypocritical and a dangerous precedent at a time we need to be repairing precedents,” said one moderate Democrat, who requested anonymity to speak on a delicate topic.
A second moderate House Democrat echoed those remarks: “As painful as it was to lose this election by six votes, and although I sympathize with Rita Hart, the state certified these election results. Upending them at this point would only serve to further divide the country.”
The Democrats have not taken a hard stance publically, but a source told Politico the top people in the House Democratic leadership “blessed” the efforts to oust Miller-Meeks.
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.
Hart insists the election has 22 valid and uncounted ballots that could give her the victory. Her lawyer said, “exhausting the state judicial process isn’t a requirement for challenging the election in the House.”
Hart’s lawyer is correct. However, President Donald Trump and the candidates for NY-22 at least went through the courts.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Add this to Bernie Sanders’ outspokenness regarding his disapproval of Trump being banned from Twitter, maybe more than a few Democrats are realizing that they are further empowering the Trump movement by continuing to abuse power so brazenly and pointlessly. Is it really worth one more Congressional seat (there are two such cases currently) the cost of getting blown out of the water in 2022?
Go Trump!
It’s the “getting caught” thing that’s sticking in their craws.
That is certainly a big part of it but they got caught in 2020 and it made Trump’s popularity jump AFTER the election. Now Trump is creating his own news network. Yet they just keep feeding the beast. So are the Republicans who insist on referring to Trump in the past tense.
Meh. I am willing to bet that this is just kabuki from these “moderates”. If Pelosi decides to axe Miller-Meeks then she is gone – and no “moderate” will be allowed to stand in the way.
If we win in 2020 which is highly questionable the first order of business has to be banning anyone who supported removing the winner of this election from either speaking in congress or from holding positions on committee. This would clear the field for moderate Democrats to outrank people like Pelosi by many orders of magnitude.
We have months between elections being called and new congressman being seated so whatever complaints are held could be taken to a judge who will weigh the evidence carefully.
Instead the loser decided to take it to her political buddies to overturn the election.
This very much is a threat to our republican principles and needs to be punished if they go through with it.
I am certain that this will be a case where we have to joint the pricks in the gutter in order to clean it up.
Danny, I don’t understand you. Sure, Hart could have taken it to a judge, but why should she have? The constitution makes the House the judge of disputed returns, so why should she not choose to go there instead? How is your calling it a threat to our republican principles different from Democrats doing the same to the electoral college, or the senate?
I figured Trump to be someone who would sink his teeth into adversaries and shake until they are limp. Marxists and Dems have misjudged him at every step.
Popcorn please.
Maybe the House minority leader should circulate a petition demanding every Democrat in Congress to take a pledge that states, in part, that “The 2020 Iowa election was free and fair, and produced accurate, reliable results.”
“…but so did Democrats—lots of them.”
So? Unless or until they vote expel the vile fascist Pelosi for this egregious attack against our democracy(!), it’s, it’s – how did SCFoaMF Obama put it? Oh, yes, just words; just speeches.
On the contrary, they are the ones who will vote on whether to seat Hart or to confirm Miller-Meeks, and if they’re not convinced Hart is the rightful winner they’ll vote not to seat her. It’s not up to Pelosi, so they don’t have to remove her to do this.
By the way, calling an appeal to the house an “egregious attack against our democracy” is exactly the same as doing so to the electoral college. In both cases they are integral parts of our democracy.
Totally agree with you Milhouse, its an unusual situation in that there is such a small difference in votes. Its a hard call to make either way and should the facts whatever they may lead.
America, first. Americans, first.
Protests from Democrats who just voted for a federal takeover of state election law in order to promote fraud and usher in one party government hold np water with me.
Rep. Phillips had better be careful — he could be run out of office on any imagined scandal.
That supports Lofgren’s claim. If Lofgren were lying, and the outcome of this process were predetermined, why would the DCCC hire such an expensive lawyer to make the case for seating Hart? That only makes sense if Lofgren is telling the truth, and her committee intends to conduct an honest investigation, as the constitution says it should.
Another indication that she’s telling the truth is that Pelosi chose to provisionally seat Miller-Meeks, which she did not have to do. Had she intended this process to be a charade with a predetermined outcome then she would have left the seat open, or even provisionally seated Hart.
Of course as partisan Democrats the committee majority are likely to be receptive to Hart’s arguments, just as the minority are likely to be receptive to Miller-Meeks’s. There’s nothing wrong with that. They’re not supposed to be neutral or disinterested. But they are supposed to consider the evidence honestly, and be willing to be convinced that Miller-Meeks has the better case. If it were up to the likes of Maxine Waters that would not happen. Thankfully it isn’t.
For some reason it wont let me upvote your comment, so here it is