Iowa Democrat asks House to review 6-vote race, cites errors

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By RYAN J. FOLEY

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) —

Democrat Rita Hart is asking the U.S. House to investigate and overturn the race that Iowa says she lost by six votes, arguing that 22 ballots were wrongly excluded and others weren’t examined during the recount.

In an election contest released Tuesday, Hart argues that she would have netted 15 votes and defeated Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks had the 22 ballots been tallied in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District.

Hart is asking the Democratic-led House to count those votes and conduct a uniform recount throughout the district’s 24 counties, saying she is confident she will be ahead after that process and declared the winner.

“Although it is admittedly tempting to close the curtain on the 2020 election cycle, prematurely ending this contest would disenfranchise Iowa voters and award the congressional seat to the candidate who received fewer lawful votes,” Hart lawyer Marc Elias writes in the 176-page notice, which includes affidavits from several voters who say their ballots were improperly rejected.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-iowa-mariannette-miller-meeks-elections-iowa-city-b0b8ddb4e878a54fce078ac116e3eb76

[SheltieLover]

1. K&R!

[niyad]

2. KNR

[Wounded Bear]

3. K & R...nt

[flibbitygiblets]

4. Republicans Marianette Miller

Wow. A literal republican puppet!

[sandensea]

21. Today's GOP admits only two types to Congress:

criminals and puppets.

And since she's far too dense to be an effective criminal...

[Tommymac]

5. Can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This must be taken up. nt

[pnwmom]

23. We absolutely should NOT take this up. On January 3, we're supposed to seat her,

on the principle that the Governor's certification wasn't final because blah, blah, blah?

And then on January 6th, we're supposed to quickly deny Trump's claims in the 6 states because the Governor's certifications ARE final?

I don't care what our legal position would be. This would be incredibly stupid. She can run again in 2 years -- and if she didn't like the outcome, she could appeal in the courts -- as she failed to do this time.

[stopdiggin]

30. 100% correct. incredibly myopic

not to mention plain stupid. This action would ask the House to overturn a certified state election -- AND state election law. Sound familiar? Sound like a winner? Even the proposal of bringing this forward is dumb, dumb, dumb!

[OhNo-Really]

6. I'm guessing Hart wins. Is the the start of investigating Kentucky? Maine? Rtc

Let us hope so because it’s weird Thant down ballots in Biden win states voted GOP Senators

[Akacia]

7. Perhaps it could also be that people hate Trump enough to vote him out

and then vote for a rethug on the down ballot. There are voters out there who are not party loyalists. That being said...

[TexasBushwhacker]

51. That's what a friend of mine did

He didn't vote for President and then voted for Republicans down ballot.

[Iggo]

9. Weird that they hate Trump but they still hate Democrats?

Not really.

[NCjack]

8. Repukes cheating the vote AGAIN. Get DEM lawyers on the

case and start filing in courts, all of the courts, all of the way to the SCOTUS.

[PatrickforO]

10. Who are these people to 'exclude' 22 votes?

I am sick of votes getting excluded. Of Republican voter suppression, followed up with accusations that it is us cheating. These people are disgusting. They cannot justify their positions morally, socially or economically, so they cheat to win.

[BobTheSubgenius]

11. But to them, it's not cheating.

It's just leveling an extremely tilted playing field, in their eyes. How can they be expected to win when people don't like them the way they think the people should?

[dalton99a]

12. Good.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. This really isn't in the jurisdiction of the house- should go to IA SOS or state court. Nt

[MadLinguist]

14. Right? Pushing it up to the US house is not a good look, IMO

[denbot]

16. Concern

[DarthDem]

17. LOL

Guessing you haven't followed how things work. (This is exactly the correct procedure.)

[FBaggins]

38. How things work?

Do you mean the time (35+ years ago) where the House got involved or the scores/hundreds of times that state courts handled election challenges that are governed by their own state laws?

[rurallib]

18. No - the process in Iowa does not allow enough time for full investigation

and also allows for non-uniform methods of recount - some by machine, some by hand.
Iowa does have paper ballots that can be counted. That will take time that Iowa law does not allow.

This is in the jurisdiction of the House. Right now the House will be the only place where Hart will get a fair hearing.
The real object here is not to 'look good' bu to establish the real winner.

[pnwmom]

20. The principle we're asserting for the Presidential race is: The Governer's certification is final.

It would be lunacy for us to take another position here, no matter how close her race was.

[rurallib]

22. The principle that we are asserting here is that every vote counts.

When the race is this close we must make sure every vote is counted, especially when the state process has many holes in it and there is a process beyond the state's.

If Miller-Meeks is still ahead after a recount led by the House, then she is a member of congress.

[pnwmom]

24. I don't care. It would undermine the more important principle for the election,

that the state's certifications are FINAL.

We can't take one position on January 3, and the opposite on January 6, no matter how good her case looks.

[stopdiggin]

31. Iowa has already DONE a recount

and certified the recount. Hart is asking the House for a do-over -- outside of state law.
Doesn't (and shouldn't) deserve a hearing. Would fail on its merits. And shouldn't be brought forward.

[rurallib]

35. My understanding is that it is not outside of state law

After the recount there was a choice to stop, appeal to the state or appeal to the US House. Hart chose the latter.
Both the appeal to the state and the appeal to the House were viable choices at the time. Hart chose the appeal to the House because of time limits imposed by state law. IIRC the appeal to the state would have had to have been done yesterday. Hardly time to dig in deep to the issues raised, including valid ballots not counted and other votes that were over votes and under counts.

As someone noted above, Everybody will be appealing every election. Well, they already are. When an election is as close as this it should be appealed to the very end. Remember that the margin here is 6 votes out of 400,000 which is something like .0015%. Machines make mistakes and a difference like that could easily be machine error.

Again, I want to see every ballot counted. I would also like to see the recount done by hand so issues like over-votes and under-votes can be resolved.

I think we send a much worse message if we simply lay down for Republicans rather than fight for what is right which is to have every vote counted. I would hate to think we were bullied into giving up because it "looked bad.'

[questionseverything]

36. Ty for your patience and explanation

These people acting like trump making up ridiculous crap and this case, which certainly looks legitimate being the same is foolish

Elias says she has a case so I would tend to believe that


We do need some federal election standards,

[rurallib]

37. Thank you

I have some friends who are deeply involved in this situation. I also live in the district and know both candidates. Rita Hart's case is every bit as legitimate as Al Franken's was.

IIRC Franken's opponent made many of the same "Give it up" statements.

[pnwmom]

42. We are not in normal times. Her case could undermine our argument on Jan 6.

Our argument is that the state proceedings, and the court decisions, were final.

The last thing we should do is to accept her argument to overturn the state vote on Jan. 3 -- no matter what her reason is.

Average Republicans aren't smart enough to understand whatever valid distinctions we might have. It's not worth it to take her case seriously, because it will imperil our infinitely more important case on Jan. 6th.

[rurallib]

43. couldn't disagree more - these are two entirely different things

In the presidential case they are filing lawsuits without proof. In the Hart case they have proof. The Meeks campaign is trying to deny to get a win without acknowledging the evidence.

[pnwmom]

44. They are different in a legalistic sense. But the differences can't be explained in 5 words or less.

So forget it.

The R's would brand her action as an effort to "overturn the election." And we would be left explaining why we should overturn the results of the election lost by a Democrat, even though we refuse to consider overturning the disputed Presidential wins in the 6 states.

No, thanks.

[rurallib]

46. Hart has evidence; Trump does not

[pnwmom]

47. Doesn't matter. She didn't pursue it all the way through the courts. n/t

[rurallib]

48. she didn't have to; what she did is legal

[pnwmom]

50. Technically legal. Politically suicidal -- for the democracy. The last thing we should be doing

is sending a signal that it's okay at this juncture to overturn the results of an election. Any election, for any reason.

[FBaggins]

41. Not really true

A court could have extended that deadline if necessary.

Note that NY's election certification deadline was 12/7... yet the NY22 race is still in court weeks later.

[rurallib]

45. may be true in NY - do you know for sure that would happen in Iowa?

[FBaggins]

49. Nobody can say "for sure" what "would" happen

But that's because we don't know how strong the case would be.

The law is pretty clear:

Not later than twenty-seven days after the day of the election, the secretary of state shall present to the board of state canvassers abstracts of votes cast at the election showing the number of ballots cast for each office and a summary of the results for each office, showing the votes cast in each county. The state board of canvassers shall review the results compiled by the secretary of state and, if the results are accurately tabulated, the state board shall approve the canvass. (Emphasis mine)

I don't see any reason to believe that a court couldn't evaluate a challenge that called into question whether the results are accurately tabulated.

[pandr32]

15. Please!

[pnwmom]

19. NO. Our consistent position must be: the decision of the state to certify is FINAL.

I don't care how close her race was, this would be used against us, as a decision that would allow races in all the other states to be reconsidered.

Do you think the certifications of Trump's LOSS in PA, MI, AZ, GA, etc. were final? Then so was Iowa's.

[PoliticAverse]

25. Federal Contested Elections Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Contested_Elections_Act

The Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 (2 U.S.C. §§ 381 et seq.) provides a procedure for candidates to the United States House of Representatives to contest general elections by filing with the Clerk of the House. The law delegates all matters involving contested elections first to the Committee on House Administration, which receives jurisdiction of such matters by the rules of the House.

[pnwmom]

26. Doesn't matter. Winning on January 6th is EVERYTHING. Fighting about a single race on Jan. 3

would be a huge distraction, no matter how right we think we are.

The Dem should have appealed through the courts. She can run again in two years.

[PoliticAverse]

27. The House will be voting to accept the certified electoral college votes. There is no doubt of that.

[pnwmom]

28. Let's be smart for once, about optics. The House should not vote on Jan. 3 to overturn the results

of a final election in Iowa, and then argue on Jan. 6 that the Presidential certification was final.

Taking that position on Jan. 3 would undermine our position on Jan. 6th, no matter how right we thought we were.

[brooklynite]

29. The House will not overturn the result of this race.

[stopdiggin]

32. and shouldn't

a recount was performed -- and election law was followed.

[Polybius]

33. Isn't there one other contested House race?

I heard there were two.

[PoliticAverse]

34. Yes, Brindisi-Tenney and it probably won't be resolved before the start of the next Congress...

(New York’s 22nd District)

https://www.syracuse.com/politics/2020/12/brindisi-tenney-result-before-start-of-congress-unlikely-after-oneida-county-setback.html

[pnwmom]

39. But this one is being decided by a court -- not by skipping the courts and going to the House. n//t

[FBaggins]

40. The other race is properly being handled in NY state courts. nt