This is a story we won't let go of until the issue is resolved, and Democrats' attempted steal is put down. For background, read this, this, and this, in order. The short version is as follows: In Iowa's Second Congressional District, the Republican candidate has won and the Democratic candidate has lost. This is what the initial vote tally determined, as did the official recount. The state formally certified the result. The losing candidate chose not to appeal to Iowa's courts. Instead, she's appealing to the Democrat-run House of Representatives to ignore the will of voters and Iowa's entire system in order to "get the result we need" (i.e., overturning the outcome and stealing the election):
Wild video clip here.@RitaHartIA says she’s having @SpeakerPelosi decide the election result instead of Iowa courts because “there was only one way they could get the result they needed”— Calvin Moore (@CalvinMoore_) December 10, 2020
This is as antithetical to democracy as it gets #Ia02
This may sound like an ill-fated, outrageous affront that will go down in flames. But Democrats have successfully done this before -- in an Indiana race 36 years ago. Having failed to win on the merits, and having decided against going through proper legal channels to challenge a very close election result, Democrat Rita Hart is hoping her fellow partisans will simply "determine" that she actually "won," declare her the victor and seat her in the new Congress. She's also likely hoping that this is all accomplished with relatively little scrutiny. Unfortunately for Hart and her party, the audacity of this scheme is gaining attention, and many in the local press aren't taking kindly to her outrageous gambit. The editors at the Des Moines Register, who endorsed Joe Biden for president and Theresa Greenfield for Senate (both candidates lost the Hawkeye State by fairly substantial margins), are unimpressed:
In Iowa's 2nd Congressional District, Rita Hart, the loser by six votes to Mariannette Miller-Meeks, has picked a path that will inflame. Her team skipped the appeal process available through Iowa's courts and elected to petition a U.S. House of Representatives panel to oversee a recount, before the full House decides the outcome. It's true that this is a legal path and that there are legitimate reasons to question the fairness of aspects of Iowa's recount process. But even if Hart prevails, a decision that's ultimately made by a Democratic-controlled House will forever taint her service in Congress. And the move could well backfire on her party, providing Iowa Republicans a potent rallying cry of Democratic chicanery for years in races up and down the ballot...Hart could have granted a powerful endorsement to Iowa's election system by conceding. She should reconsider and do that now, for the sake of her party and all Iowans. Iowa doesn't need more partisan bile infecting its politics...Meanwhile, all Iowans should welcome Miller-Meeks as a new member of Iowa's congressional delegation. Miller-Meeks served in the U.S. Army for 24 years, where she gained her training as an ophthalmologist. She worked in private practice in Ottumwa, served as a director of the Iowa Department of Public Health and was elected as a state senator in 2018. While this editorial board disagrees with many of her policy positions, she has shown herself to be smart, hardworking and thoughtful, and we believe she will serve Iowans well.
Incidentally, the DMR also endorsed Rita Hart, along with every Democrat running for Congress in the state (three of four lost). The liberal Quad City Times, which similarly endorsed Hart, has also criticized her maneuvering -- albeit while pulling punches and using words like "disappointing," "premature" and "unfortunate." The Omaha World Herald in neighboring Nebraska has called on Hart to accept defeat: "Hart and Iowa Democrats, having chosen not to pursue a remedy in state court, should accept the certified election result. Miller-Meeks should be seated." The Wall Street Journal editorialized on these developments as well:
Democrats in Washington could overrule Iowa voters to seat a co-partisan and grow their majority. The Iowa race was decided by six votes. The counting went on for weeks as 24 counties canvassed and recanvassed over 390,000 ballots, and lawyers from both sides haggled with election officials over machine counting, ballot qualifications and voter intent. Normally this exhaustive process would end matters. Not this year. Ms. Hart’s campaign said it will bypass an Iowa court appeal and ask the Committee on House Administration to intervene. The House has final say on its Members’ elections and the Supreme Court has held that courts can’t intervene in those decisions under the Constitution’s Article I...That means the count in Iowa’s 2nd District will become a political fight rather than a legal one...Donald Trump’s unproven claims of election theft are damaging to public trust, but they’ve been going nowhere in court. Democrats could outright steal one or two House seats, while the media ignore the power grab. The way Democrats behave in these two disputed districts in the coming weeks will demonstrate the likely state of political norms in a post-Trump era.
The other race the Journal piece refers to is NY-22, where last-minute "liberal voting rules helped make the race nearly impossible to resolve." Republican Claudia Tenney is clinging to a fractional lead in the contest, which is still being adjudicated in court. Asked about the battle earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it "may end up in the House." She insists the process would be treated as "not a political" matter. Sure.