Opinion: Democrats Move on Iowa's Second District

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  38 comments

By:   The Editorial Board (WSJ)

Opinion: Democrats Move on Iowa's Second District
The House takes the first step toward overturning an election.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Democrats have been talking a lot these past few weeks about the sanctity of election results, but their principles on that score may be malleable based on who wins. This week a House committee took the first step in what looks like an effort to unseat the Republican Member for Iowa's 2nd Congressional district and install a Democrat instead.

GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks won the November race by 47 votes in the first count and six votes after lawyers wrangled over ballots in a recount. Democrat Rita Hart wants the House to use its constitutional authority as "judge of the elections" of its Members to impose another recount and reverse the outcome.

The last time the House reversed a state-certified election result was in Indiana's "bloody eighth" congressional district in 1985, and the last time it replaced a sitting Member with his opponent was in 1938. In both cases the House was under Democratic control.

Ms. Hart's brief to the Committee on House Administration claims that 22 ballots should have been counted but weren't. Ms. Miller-Meeks replied that the challenge should be dismissed because Ms. Hart declined in December to raise her complaints in a special Iowa court designed to resolve contested elections.

On Wednesday the committee's Democratic majority sided with Ms. Hart and "tabled" Ms. Miller-Meeks's motion to dismiss. Remarks from the committee chair, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, suggest Democrats are prepared to see the process through to their desired outcome.

Ms. Lofgren said “the American people deserve to know who actually won this election,” as if the outcome had not already been certified by a 5-0 vote of Iowa’s state elections board composed of three Republicans and two Democrats. The precursor to the Committee on House Administration had held that results are “presumed to be correct until they are impeached by proof of irregularity and fraud.”

But now the committee seems intent on a third count of ballots, this time with Democrats in Washington making the rules. It asked the two parties to list any ballots they think should have been included or excluded. That invites Ms. Hart’s lawyers to introduce more ballot claims they think will favor their side, and forces Ms. Miller-Meeks to do the same though she is already a legally elected Representative.

Ms. Hart’s attorneys had the chance to take complaints before a five-judge contest court in Iowa that could have applied state law on issues like ballot signatures and seals. If House Democrats wanted to avoid inserting themselves into an after-the-vote-is-counted election dispute, they would have said merely that the state process had to be respected.

That imperative ought to have been especially evident after Jan. 6. But Speaker  Nancy Pelosi  said Thursday that a full House vote reversing the outcome was a possibility. Democrats may not have the large majorities they had in 1985 and 1938, but their current narrow majority is united, willful and determined.

The party is on the precipice of creating a precedent, for the first time in a generation, that a partisan majority in Congress can disregard state officials and redo a close election count according to its own preferences. All their high-minded talk about respecting the voters seems to apply only when  Donald Trump  is challenging the results. This blatant Democratic power play would inspire more partisan bitterness—and further erode voter faith in elections.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

The epitome of hypocrisy. Talk of stolen elections is forbidden when arguing former President Trump had the election stolen from him, while the Democrats quietly prepare to steal a House seat. 

Pelosi is doing it boldly as speaker & dictator. She has a narrow majority, but they are unified and determined.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Expert
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Did Trumpist's actually believe this nonsense would not come back to bite them? The hypocrisy you speak of started with them.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @1.1    one month ago

... after all the psycho babble rhetoric from the right wing, I'm convinced there must be some evidence. unlike the last time when some wannabe autocrat made baseless allegations, filed dozens of lawsuits, went to SCOTUS a few times, and yet still failed to provide any credible evidence of any election fraud.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Expert
1.1.2  Hallux  replied to  devangelical @1.1.1    one month ago

Audacity married temerity and shared the same condom in that bunch.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hallux @1.1    one month ago
id Trumpist's actually believe this nonsense would not come back to bite them?

Which started with the Democrats challenging the certification of the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections in Congress.

So no one should be surprised the Democrats are trying to steal yet  another election.  It's funny to think anyone  believes the nonsense from progressives about defending democracy though

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Expert
1.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.3    one month ago

Those were minor challenges.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.5  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.3    one month ago

So what elections were actually stolen?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
1.1.6  r.t..b...  replied to  Hallux @1.1.4    one month ago

The difference between a symbolic gesture vs. an earnest attempt to undermine the entire process, with goading and explicit involvement from the head of government no less. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.1    one month ago

"Did Trumpist's actually believe this nonsense would not come back to bite them? The hypocrisy you speak of started with them."

I do believe that they felt they would suffer no consequences whatsoever as their dear leader, the former occupant of the White House, led them on for weeks and told them to do what they did!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.3    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hallux @1.1.4    one month ago
Those were minor challenges.

Sure.  And so was the Republican challenge in 2020.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.1.5    one month ago
o what elections were actually stolen?

 Did you miss the part where I said "trying to steal?" 

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.11  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.10    one month ago

So then, no election was ever stolen...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.1.11    one month ago
So then, no election was ever stolen...

Can't wait to see you use that when when people complain about the Republican attempt to stop certification of the 2020 election.. 

Thanks for this. 

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.13  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.12    one month ago

At least you admit what happened.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
1.1.14  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @1.1    one month ago

Trump used Congress to get the election overturned? Oh wait, Congress didn't do it. Not even the Republicans would go along with it; and Biden's election win was certified.

Pelosi and the Democrats are as full of shit as the day is long. They could care about fair and open elections; it is the results they want that matter.

Wonder how loud the left will scream when they lose the House and Republicans decide to remove some Democrats that won close elections.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Senior Participates
1.1.15  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @1.1.5    one month ago

Washington governor Gregoire in Washington state in 2005. The Dems kept challenging the recounts and added mysteriously found uncounted ballots in heavily democrat King county until they had enough for a win. Evidence also pointed to dead people and unqualified felons voting. 

Al franken in 2009 similar tactics. 

The election in 1983 that Bob Dornan lost that had hundreds of illegal aliens voting for his opponent. 

There are reports that John Kennedy won the 1960 Presidential election due to irregularities in the vote in Texas and in Illinois. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.15    one month ago

One of the most famous attempts was the Chicago Democratic machine's attempt to steal the 1982 governor's election.  They forged at least 100,000 votes and only got caught because one of  the forgers came forward after being passed over for a patronage job.  The FBI reported the massive fraud operation had been ongoing for years in Chicago, so who knows how many elections they stole. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.9    one month ago
And so was the Republican challenge in 2020.

Are you referring to the congressional challenges and excluding Trump's 2-month national con job with 60+ lawsuits, pressure phone calls and, of course, Trump continuously lying to the world that the election was fraudulent and that he was the legitimate winner and working his supporters up into a frenzy thinking that their votes were violated and that our system was corrupt?

You must be excluding that, because if the PotUS engaging in such an initiative is considered a 'minor challenge' then what is a 'major challenge'?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.17    one month ago

Trying to stop congress from certifying an election is trying to stop congress from certifying an election. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
1.1.19  r.t..b...  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.18    one month ago

By storming Congress?

God gawd, man. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.18    one month ago

Thus, per you, all challenges to an election are 'minor' challenges.   Even Trump's 2-month national con job with 60+ lawsuits, pressure phone calls and, of course, Trump continuously lying to the world that the election was fraudulent and that he was the legitimate winner and working his supporters up into a frenzy thinking that their votes were violated and that our system was corrupt is then simply a 'minor' challenge.

I see Trump's affront as a major challenge (it was historic and sickening) and, by comparison, Jill Stein's recount calls in 2016 would be a (albeit visible and serious) minor challenge.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
1.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    one month ago
Thus, per you, all challenges to an election are 'minor' challenges.

Where did I say that?  The Democrats have claimed fraud every time they've lost. : Lawsuits, fraudulent vote counters, claiming voting machines were fixed, the Russians hacked the vote count etc etc..  Distinguishing between the last 15 years of Democrats saying the elections were rigged and Trumps claims in 2020 is just arguing about angles on the head of a pin.  Trump followed the path set for him by the losing Democrats and found an public primed to believe in electoral fraud as they've been told elections are rigged through voting machines or "hacks" or suspicious numbers of votes in certain areas by Democrats every time they lose.  Trump is not an original thinker.   

How do you think a majority of Democrats came to  believe the Russians changed vote totals in 2016?  The democrats have immersed their followers in charges of election fraud just as thoroughly  as Trump did.  They just like to rewrite history once Trump started playing their game. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.21    one month ago
Where did I say that? 

You are not following the logical consequences of your comments?    Note:

Sean @1.1.9 ☞ Sure [that the challenges per Hallux were minor challenges].  And so was the Republican challenge in 2020.

Here I asked for clarification on your comment because it looked at though you just deemed the 'Republican challenge' (whatever you meant by that) as a minor challenge and I always like to clear up ambiguity before I opine:

TiG @1.1.17 ☞ Are you referring to the congressional challenges and excluding Trump's 2-month national con job with 60+ lawsuits, pressure phone calls and, of course, Trump continuously lying to the world that the election was fraudulent and that he was the legitimate winner and working his supporters up into a frenzy thinking that their votes were violated and that our system was corrupt? You must be excluding that, because if the PotUS engaging in such an initiative is considered a 'minor challenge' then what is a 'major challenge'?

Instead of clarifying you equivocate:

Sean @1.1.18Trying to stop congress from certifying an election is trying to stop congress from certifying an election. 

Your response was, in effect, X = X.    You equate all attempts to stop certifying an election regardless of scale, mode or method.   That logically means that there are no 'minor' or 'major' challenges —that they are all the same.

And since you refused to clarify based on my request @1.1.17 your silence suggests that you indeed do not exclude Trump's 2-month con job from these challenges.   Thus, working with the little bits you actually offer, I expressed what your words thus imply (again encouraging you to simply be clear):

TiG @1.1.20 ☞ Thus, per you, all challenges to an election are 'minor' challenges.   Even Trump's 2-month national con job with 60+ lawsuits, pressure phone calls and, of course, Trump continuously lying to the world that the election was fraudulent and that he was the legitimate winner and working his supporters up into a frenzy thinking that their votes were violated and that our system was corrupt is then simply a 'minor' challenge. I see Trump's affront as a major challenge (it was historic and sickening) and, by comparison, Jill Stein's recount calls in 2016 would be a (albeit visible and serious) minor challenge.

In response you are aghast and start with:

Sean @1.1.21☞ Where did I say that? 

This suggests I have misinterpreted your vague comments.   Okay, so now you will clear things up, right?

Nope.   You go on to deflect into a 'Trump was not the first to contest an election' equivocation as if what Trump did is nothing special and was equivalent to all other D challenges of elections.   No difference.   All the same.

Well, that matches what I wrote @1.1.20 so it seems that is indeed your view.   


You have twice chosen to not address my clarifying question @1.1.17 and @1.1.20.   Your refusal to clarify suggests I got it right.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
1.1.23  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.14    one month ago

Pelosi and her minions are only concerned about the sanctity of elections when it applies to them!

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

push the obstructionists aside. push them out of the lifeboats and leave them on the beaches or in the dusty deserts of history. there's lots of work left to do to defend our constitution and make america better for all, not just wealthy old white supremacists with political connections.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

It almost goes without saying that this dishonest stunt will lose more seats than it gains for the Dem dummies.

They're on fast track to lose both the House and Senate in the midterms

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.3.1  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    one month ago

how about listing a run down of your predictions from the last election.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

"...unified and determined."

More like unified and vengeful.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.4    one month ago

They are on a mission.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
1.4.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.1    one month ago

They always are.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
2  Ender    one month ago

All this proves to me is it is about time we went beyond the patchwork of state laws and move on to a national standard.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Ender @2    one month ago

national problems deserve national solutions.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Guide
3  Dismayed Patriot    one month ago

"All their high-minded talk about respecting the voters seems to apply only when  Donald Trump  is challenging the results."

Everyone would have expected Trump to challenge the election if he lost by only 6 votes. The fact that he lost by hundreds of thousands in the key battleground States and yet he still challenged the vote all the way to the end and still refuses to accept that he lost is what defines Trumpian Banana Republicans as total sore losers.

Trying to equate the Democrats challenging a house election that was won by a mere 6 votes to Trumps full blown irrational tantrum is completely dishonest. Both parties get to present any ballots they feel weren't counted fairly so Republicans have as much chance of holding on to the win as Democrats do in challenging it.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
3.1  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3    one month ago

What gets me is them deciding, well these couple of votes we can toss...

Someone actually voted and places are deciding to throw them out or not.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
3.2  Ronin2  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3    one month ago

Reading is fundamental

GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks won the November race by 47 votes in the first count and six votes after lawyers wrangled over ballots in a recount. Democrat Rita Hart wants the House to use its constitutional authority as "judge of the elections" of its Members to impose another recount and reverse the outcome.

She lost by 47 votes- but thanks to Democratic lawyers- she got it reduced to 6 votes. Still a loss. She didn't protest the election results in the court appointed by the state to handle election disputes; knowing that she would lose. Instead she waits until after the election results are certified to take her request to the Democratic controlled House. Knowing that POS Pelosi cares more about power than honesty and integrity.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Guide
3.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2    one month ago
She lost by 47 votes- but thanks to Democratic lawyers- she got it reduced to 6 votes.

So she lost by 6 votes, like I said. The fact that an initial count had her losing by 47 is immaterial if 41 of those votes were invalid as proved in court.

I agree that they should have contested this in the State immediately instead of taking it to the Democrat controlled house, but that doesn't change the fact that a 6 vote win is gnats ass close and should be reviewed and confirmed by both side till both are satisfied and accept the results. The fact that in an initial review 41 of the 47 wining votes in question were invalidated for Republicans it would lead one to believe perhaps there were more bunk votes among the Republican ballots as only 12% of the reviewed ballots supposedly cast for the Republican candidate were in fact legitimate.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    one month ago

A 6 vote margin is certainly grounds for recounts and concern that the election results are true.

Ultimately though, this is a state affair — the state decides who won.   The federal government should stay out of state elections unless there is good reason to believe the state officials are corrupt and that the state is not correcting the problem.   

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online








36 visitors