Iowa Democrat will challenge election results with House

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

A Democratic candidate who fell six votes short of holding an open battleground congressional district in Iowa is planning to challenge those results directly with the House, placing the chamber in the highly unusual position of potentially determining the outcome of the race.

After what appears to be the tightest congressional election in decades, Rita Hart, a state senator, has decided to forgo a legal battle in her home state and will instead contest the election directly with the House Administration Committee. Iowa election officials certified Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks as the winner on Monday after a recount diminished her initial victory margin from 47 votes to only 6 votes.

The move, the aggressiveness of which has stunned some Democrats, will trigger a rarely used congressional process, which was memorably deployed to settle an election in the mid-1980s. But the stakes are high: Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a severely diminished majority, which could be as small as five votes after sustaining unexpected losses last month.

But some Democrats question the optics of challenging certified election results, as President Donald Trump still refuses to concede and makes baseless claims of widespread election fraud, despite losing by much larger margins than the Iowa race.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/02/rita-hart-iowa-challenge-election-results-442224

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Sauce for the gander. Why not?

[samsingh]

5. agreed. Repugs will only learn if we use aggressive tactics as well

[stopdiggin]

9. like overturning certfied election results?

No Thanks!

[samsingh]

36. no one is overturning election results. They are simply challenging the counting - 6 votes !

[stopdiggin]

41. the 6 vote margin IS the result

they've already done the recount requested -- this is the result -- and the state has certified. If you're looking for any further remedy here (questionable at best) -- it needs to go through the state. Taking this to the House is a fools errand. This candidate got some really bad advice.

[Catch2.2]

35. Yup, exactly!

Agree 100%

[pnwmom]

15. Because it will provide the R's with cover for their challenges of certifications. n/t

[myohmy2]

23. absolutely...

...what would trump do if he lost by 6 votes?

...he would declare the results bogus and rigged then declare himself the winner!

...optics, schmoptics, we need the extra vote...

[samsingh]

48. agreed

[L.Pharmstrong]

26. Haven't you answered your own question?

How do we continue to criticize Trump and the Republicans for trying to discount the results of a free and fair election while a Democratic candidate demonstrates the same disdain for the electoral process. Sauce for the goose.

[samsingh]

49. the election was stolen from Al Gore and the repugs blame him for asking for a recount

that the supreme court refused do to - scalia actually stated that when Al Gore got more votes the public would never accept George bush as President.

Gore made a sacrifice for the country. The Democrats hoped the repugs would be satisfied. They were not. And here we are with a worse repug as President who has arguably worked for North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Roger stone lied the other day and said the North Korea sent votes on Biden's behalf.

There is no high road with the repugs. We either fight them as if this is a real war or we say goodbye to democracy. No hyperbole. A 3 star general - Mike Flynn - is saying just that.

[rurallib]

2. Thanks for posting - a most interesting move by Hart

Will be so interested to see it play out.

The thought of having 3M as my rep after 14 years of Dave Loebsack makes me want to puke.

[jayschool2013]

28. I'm here in IA-2 with you

I just moved here three-and-half years ago from Boulder, Colorado to take on my final career challenge, and I figured Iowa City and District 2 was safely blue.

How the heck did this race end up so close? I might have to move back to Colorado.

[Rebl2]

30. Boy I

would move back to CO.

[rurallib]

34. surprise - all the districts in Iowa except the 4th sure pretty much split 50-50

We had Republican Jim Leach for @ 30 years before Loebsack.

[marie999]

4. I haven't read anything about any fraud. The election has been certified.

If we do it then we are telling the Republicans that it is okay to do it. Trump will have a field day.

[AleksS]

7. Has something been restraining him so far?

I didn’t notice that he was holding himself back from anything right now?

I don’t believe anything we do could unleash him any more than he already is. He’s not constrained by morals, honor, decency, consistency, truth, reality, tradition, law, or justice already. I don’t imagine anything this IA politician does can possibly give him any more of a field day than he’s already having.

[stopdiggin]

11. terrible, terrible optics

"He’s not constrained by morals, honor, decency, consistency, truth, reality, tradition, law, or justice already."

No -- but I am. And therein lies the difference.
----- -----

[AleksS]

29. Eh. Optics shmoptics.

Last edited Wed Dec 2, 2020, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)

The best optics is winning. Everyone loves a winner.

Repubs will attack no matter what, and they’ll make stuff up if they want to.

Nothing will restrain Trump.

So basing a course of action on trying to appease them and not give them a “field day” is an exercise in self-flagellation and that only helps them.

There may be other reasons for this IA pol not to fight, but bad optics and republican reactions are not good ones.

It’s not like a single repub will say “Oh you know, that person in IA didn’t fight for their seat, so we shouldn’t either.” Or Trump will suddenly have an epiphany: “Oh, I’ve been so wrong. I’ll stop now.”

I wish Gore would have fought a little harder in 2000. There’s a reason many people are ashamed to associate with Democrats/liberals. We’re seen as weak and capitulative. People like fighters and they like winners. If we roll over and show our bellies when we could fight then A). We’ll lose. And B). No one will care.

[stopdiggin]

38. you are assuming

(or pretending to assume for the sake of argument) that there is the slightest chance in hell that the House would actually agree to overturning the electoral result here. They won't -- and therefore you're stuck with the extremely shitty optics of the Democratic party saying, "We too don't really give a shit about elections or democracy" -- without a single positive result to stack up on the other side of the ledger.

It's a fools game -- and it doesn't have a frigging thing to do with what the Republicans think. There has already been a recount -- the verdict is in and the state has certified a result. The only thing gained from here on out is the level of stink involved.

[AleksS]

42. No, not really.

I’m only assuming that people like fighters better than give-uppers, and disagreeing with the position that “it would give trump a field day” is ever a reason to not take an action.

Trump will have a “field day” no matter what. Might as well fight, and be a fighter, rather than surrender and be a coward/wimp/capitulator/surrender-monkey/milquetoast/etc.

I make no assumptions either way about what the house will do. I leave that up to you. Regardless of what the house does or does not do,

A). people prefer a fighter to a quitter.
B). Repubs will smear any candidate any way, so “bad optics” are irrelevant.

If I make any assumption, it’s the assumption that the repubs will always attack on some bullshit hypocritical issue, so there’s no actual harm in fighting, and some significant gain. While we don’t want to be republicans when it comes to their beliefs and platform, there is no value in throwing away weapons just because the republicans also use them. Let’s not re-enact Pickett’s Charge politically because we won’t use every weapon available out of a fear of dirtying our hands; let’s not avoid useful tools just because repubs also use them.

The union used guns too. It didn’t mean they were morally equivalent to the confederacy. Both sides used guns, but only one side was using them to defend slavery.

Conversely, let’s especially use those weapons repubs use, rather than simply yielding the field to them. Let’s not bring marshmallows to a gunfight when there are guns lying at our feet.

To make good policy, you have to first win. Giving up a weapon and surrendering is generally not a good way to win.

[stopdiggin]

43. "To make good policy, you have to first win."

Precisely. And throwing away weapons, and "dirtying our hands" and all the other blather really have nothing to do with whether this fight is remotely winnable. And if it is not winnable -- then, yes, almost certainly the cost (whatever it might be) is an unnecessary one.

"so there’s no actual harm in fighting, and some significant gain."

You keep asserting that there is no cost involved in this action. Nonsense. I'll invite you to ask somebody in the House leadership about that.
----- -----

[AleksS]

45. So you have nothing but insult and innuendo?

Okie dokie!



You’re free to surrender all you like out of fear that repubs might be mean to you (“have a field day”) if you dare use the same tools they do.

See where that gets you. The “optics” of being a give-upper are distinctly not better than the “optics” of being a never-say-die, fight ‘til there’s no fight left pugilist. And the repubs will “have a field day” either way. You act like repubs WON’T attack if we’re “nice” and give up easily, and don’t fight as strongly as they do. I would be interested in knowing where you got that impression?

Oh, and of course, you may have heard somewhere:

Quitters never win.

[stopdiggin]

50. hearing a lot of nostrums about "quitters never win"

and "never say die" -- and very little about whether this candidate's actions have any chance of success -- or any reasonable profit in terms of political gains or tactics. And that is because the answer there is still -- no, there is not!

Understand -- you want to slug it out to the bitter end, will ye or nil ye. And I'm saying, "Sorry. Don't agree with you!" Combativeness might be a valuable trait (in certain situations) -- but it is NOT the same as winning. Sometimes it just makes you look foolish and ill informed. (and slightly worse for wear.) ---- ----

[AleksS]

51. Yeah, people LOOOOVE quitters.

Fighting to the end only helps this candidate and Democrats in general, whether or not it ends up seating them. It certainly doesn't give them a worse chance of winning now, and absolutely does help the brands of this candidate and D's in general in the future and elsewhere; any help in the "strength" department is desperately needed.

Quitting, giving up, wimping out: A) never won anybody anything, and B) never gained anyone any support, admiration or followers.

There is literally no downside to fighting, and significant upside--win or lose.

Looking like a fighter never hurt a candidate.
People love a pugilist.

Best way to end a political career: be perceived as weak, a wimp, a quitter, and make sure your constituency knows you're always ready to roll over and give up for them.

Still haven't seen the downside to this candidate fighting to the very end. You've alleged it will give "trump a field day" which he would have anyways, so no loss there. You've alleged it's bad optics, which is certainly untrue, given that the optics of strength are always better than the optics of being a quitter.

To bring up Al Gore again, some folks say that it was a doggone sigh that killed his chances. That's even neglecting his early concession in 2000. How about the infamous George HW "wimp factor," the damaging attacks on Kerry as less than heroic, and the attacks on Hillary's health as a proxy for weakness? Perceived weakness kills.

There's no downside to people seeing you and saying: Yup! That's my guy! (Or girl!) S/He'll fight for me every way s/he can!

Which one's a famous motto:

Never give up!

or:

Give up, it's not that important anyways...

[samsingh]

47. repugs don't care if we take the high road - in fact that's what they want so they can be shameless

[SpankMe]

6. I sympathize. But...

...if a Republican did this we on the left would be outraged. She should concede and we should move on. That's what we're expecting Repubs who've lost close races to do.

I'm shocked that we went from a 35 seat advantage to a 5 seat advantage in the house. I really believe there have been shenanigans. Republicans shouldn't have gained that much with all of the staining by Trump.

[bearsfootball516]

8. You'd be surprised how many Never-Trumpers there are.

My parents are two of them. Live in North Carolina. Republicans for life that hate Trump. Both voted for Biden, then straight ticket Republican the rest of the way.

[stopdiggin]

10. yes. quite a few Republicans that still think

the "party" itself is OK. (which kind of strains credulity with the rest of us -- but there you have it)

[moose65]

13. How are you defining "5 seat advantage"?

In the current House, Dems have 232 seats and Republicans 197. There is one Libertarian (Amash) and 5 vacant seats.

In the new House, so far Democrats have won 222 seats and Republicans 209, with 4 seats to go. If the Iowa one goes GOP, that brings them to 210. Even if the Republicans win all the remaining seats, that's 222 - 213. That's a 9-seat advantage.

218 is a majority, so currently the Democrats have a 14-seat majority. In January that will probably become a 4-seat majority. Dems lost 10 seats, but your statement makes it seem like they lost 30!

[former9thward]

14. No, its D 222 and R 212.

There is only one seat left in NY and that is currently in court.

[FBaggins]

18. Five Democrats voting "no" can kill a vote

Or five seats switched (in redistricting or 2022) loses the House.

This isn't 1984 when we started with a triple-digit advantage in House seats.

[Rebl2]

31. Why didn't

she contest it before it was certified. You are right. We would be angry if R.s did this and someone is trying to by the name of trump.

[soldierant]

37. You mean during the 30 seconds between

the time they completed the recount and the time they certified?

[mpcamb]

12. Republicans are threatening to hold up Biden Cabinet appointees so we should walk on eggshells?????

We're talkin' 6 votes! Not 6 MILLION!! Iowa was a close race. trunp/Biden wasn't.

Challenge it!
Screw them!
They've already signaled their non-cooperation!

[cstanleytech]

17. There's always going to be close election races but if she lost then she lost and

should concede and try her hand again in 2 years.

[maxsolomon]

25. Christine Gregoire paid for a 2nd recount in a WA Gov race.

She lost the 1st one, then won the 2nd one.

The GOP has been fighting dirty for DECADES. Fight back.

[dsc]

16. I think she use her state remedies and then if there is a compelling reason

go to the House. The article literally gives us no information at all as to why she is challenging.

[DeminPennswoods]

19. Here's the info from democracydocket

https://www.democracydocket.com/2020/12/update-ia-2-candidate-rita-hart-trails-by-six-votes/

On November 13th, the the Hart Campaign filed for a a complete recount in all 24 counties in the second district. At the time of the recount, the vote difference between the two candidates was a mere 57 votes. The certified results of the recount shrunk Miller-Meeks’ lead to six votes.

“While that recount considered more votes, limitations in Iowa law mean there are more legally cast votes left to be counted,” Hart Campaign manager Zach Meunier said. “With a margin this small, it is critical that we take this next step to ensure Iowans’ ballots that were legally cast are counted.”

[groundloop]

20. If there are legal votes that have yet to be counted, well, that's a state issue.

In my most humble opinion this should be challenged with the state.

[Retrograde]

21. So are they still counting these "leftover" votes?

Did the certifiers take these into account? What's the status with Iowa anyway?

AFAIK, the only contest with a constitutionally-specified deadline is for president/vice-president: the electors have to cast their votes on a specific day. Other contests should have more leeway, I would think.

[FBaggins]

24. "limitations in Iowa law mean there are more legally cast votes left to be counted"

I don't like the sound of that. It sounds like she isn't happy with current Iowa law and wants the House (rather than a court) to apply different standards.

Yes... Trump wouldn't hesitate to do that - but it strikes me as incredibly dangerous with such a slim majority and a chance not worth taking.

[DeminPennswoods]

32. first paragraph

The Hart Campaign intends to bypass filing an election contest with the state and instead file a contest with the U.S. House, citing concerns over Iowa’s expedited contest timeline. Under Iowa law, a five-judge panel would have to declare a winner by Tuesday, December 8.

The way I read it, is that Iowa's deadlines don't give enough time for votes to be counted or ballots to be challenged and/or adjudicated.

[myohmy2]

22. go for it...

...think like a Republican...if you can do it, DO IT!

...think, Amy Coney Barrett...

...it'll give us one more vote...

[My Pet Orangutan]

33. And set a precedendent for overturning certfied election results

for one more seat?

No.

[myohmy2]

39. would...

...trump, graham and mcconnell do it if the shoe was on the other foot?

...for four years they been 'setting precedence' and Republicans will set more precedence as soon as they get a chance...

...we shouldn't be fighting in the new trumpian war with one arm tied behind our back...

Yes.

...

[TeamPooka]

27. State issue, not for the House. Suck it up.

[stopdiggin]

40. Concise -- and accurate. (nt)

[ahoysrcsm]

52. Short deadline by state statute, no time to go to court. Let's do it.

Quit being a bully.

[BasicallyComplicated]

44. We are not the good guys ...

Many on this board need to stop thinking we have to uphold some standard that the other guy doesn't. This has always been a street fight and a fight we will lose if we keep talking the unnecessary high road. This measure is not illegal. It is not unprecedented it is just uncommon. Conceding battles in good faith is one thing but in six votes with uncounted votes on the table go for it what's the worst that happens ...you lose?!?! The difference isn't virtue, it's tenacity! How hard are we willing to fight for the American people and ourselves. We are NOT the heros of the story, we are the OTHER party in a system that limits the field to two. If they bring fist, we bring bats. They bring bats we have knives. Etc. We fight to win period.

[AleksS]

46. YES!!!!

This!!!

Here’s a list of all the fights in history that were won by surrendering:


The end.

Here’s a list of all the progressive policies enacted in legislation by politicians who surrendered:


The end.