You Thought The 2020 Elections Were Over? Pffff….
Just when we thought we were out, and done with, the 2020 election cycle…THEY PULL US BACK IN to a House election in Iowa.
From Politico’s Playbook: (emphasis and capitalization Politico’s)
Just weeks after blasting DONALD TRUMP for trying to overturn the Electoral College, House Democrats are about to try to reverse the outcome of a House election in Iowa to pad their slim majority by an extra seat.
Democrats say their candidate RITA HART, who lost to GOP Rep. MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS by six votes, has every right to ask the House to resolve one of the closest House races in American history. Congress, they point out, has dealt with 110 such contested election cases over the past 90 years. Only three, however, resulted in the declared winner being ousted and replaced, according to the House Administration Committee.
The Iowa case could become the fourth. Rep. ZOE LOFGREN (D-Calif.), who chairs the Administration panel that will adjudicate the first part of this case — and is a longtime ally of Speaker NANCY PELOSI — has said her panel members are keeping an open mind, that nothing is predetermined and that Hart has the burden of proof.
But a source close to the process confirmed to Playbook that the effort to oust Miller-Meeks in favor of Hart has been blessed by the top echelons of House Democratic leadership. And the DCCC has brought in — and is paying the legal fees for — top Democratic election lawyer MARC ELIAS, this person said.
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.
Still, the flip of the script here is really something to behold. Republicans who followed Trump’s demand that they object to the Electoral College votes, without any proof of fraud, are suddenly calling foul on Hart’s use of Congress to challenge her own election results.
But Democrats were just as adamant about the need to respect state-certified elections. If they side with Hart, the party will be effectively throwing out the decision of local election officials.
I can understand pivoting away from the argument one was using yesterday when the stakes are high enough.
If this was the difference between Pelosi and Whomever being House Speaker, hell yes! Get rid of yesterday’s argument!
Are the stakes particularly high here? Like, will this change much of anything for the House except who the incumbent is come November of next year?Report
Norms were broken…
But I had a similar thought; for a single seat in Iowa?Report
I had the same thought. The political cost to challenge that one seat when you already have an (admittedly slim) majority seems entirely too much for the benefit. Even if the deck is already stacked so the decision by the House will be that the certified election results stand.
Six votes. Toss them an extra half-million dollars in 2022. And teach them how to use it. Start here.Report
But that would take years….
The optics of this are so colossally bad it just beggars the imagination. And for what gain?Report
The Gang of Four flipped seats in the first election after they started spending. If you want to argue that there are no more Dem-leaning voters who can be brought out to vote in Iowa’s 2nd, argue that. If you want to argue that the Republican incumbent has no baggage that could be exploited, argue that. If you want to argue that the covid relief bill has nothing that benefits Iowa’s 2nd, argue that. Or that the infrastructure bill that will almost certainly pass later this year pumping money into Iowa’s 2nd (and Pelosi is smarter than that) isn’t a positive, argue that. Don’t argue that six votes is an insurmountable hurdle that can’t be reversed in something short of “years”.Report
If the optics of this are “so colossally bad”, how would you rate the optics of January 6th and the fallout from that (e.g., Congress Critters lying and saying there was no violence on that day)?Report
Or the “optics” of the Sooper Dooper Kraken lawyer whining that no one should take any of that stuff seriously, it was all a joke, hey, cancha take a joke?
Or the “optics” of Republicans up and down the line declaring that if everyone is allowed to vote, no Republican will ever be elected again?
Just because the Republicans have a twisted and nihilistic worldview, doesn’t mean we have to live in it.Report
I mean, if being hypocritical is “so colossally bad” from an optics perspective, than I’m just curious what the rest of the optics scale looks like.Report
In January, the Democrats demanded that all ballots be counted and not be thrown out.
Now, in a stunning and hypocritical about-face, the Democrats demand that all ballots be counted and not be thrown out.
I interviewed these customers in a rural diner and they emphatically stated they will not stand for this perfidy.Report