Democrats have only a razor-thin 219-211 advantage in the House of Representatives (with five current vacancies). Although state officials declared Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks the winner in the state’s Second Congressional District after she won her race by just six votes out of nearly 400,000 cast, and though she took the oath of office in Washington in January, Nancy Pelosi set the ball rolling for the House of Representatives to overrule the state and award the seat to Miller-Meeks’ Democratic opponent, Rita Hart.
She has refused to concede the race, claiming that 22 disallowed ballots should have made her the winner if counted. The House has the rarely used power under the Constitution to arbitrate “elections, returns and qualifications of its own members,” and in 1969, Congress passed the Federal Contested Elections Act to set up a clear process governing how it should hear and decide such cases. So now Democrats have initiated an investigation by the House Administration Committee, a full-scale review into the election that could lead to impounding ballots, a hand recount and ultimately a vote by the full House to decide the election.
But…but… I thought members of the House and Senate refusing to accept the state-certified results of the 2020 Presidential election was an attack on democracy itself (although this too is allowed under the Constitution)! Well, that was Republicans, you see, and the complaining candidate was Donald Trump. Come on. Be reasonable. Besides, why would anyone suspect that the review of the Iowa House election would be subject to partisan bias and manipulation?
“One hundred percent, pure partisan politics,” said Representative Rodney Davis of Illinois, the top Republican on the Administration Committee. “It wasn’t too long ago that many of my Democratic colleagues were saying a certificate of election by state officials were sacrosanct.”
You have to admit he has a point. However, it is also fair to point out:
- A six vote margin in a single district in a single state is a far cry from the almost 7 million votes by which Biden defeated Trump, and the need to flip at least three states to change the results in the Electoral College.
- A Presidential election is far more important and consequential that any House contest.
- Unlike the Iowa race, it is known exactly what the source of uncertainty is.
So the analogy is weak. Nonetheless, for the Democrats to pursue this course while simultaneously claiming that they care deeply about the public’s trust in elections and the integrity of the republic shows just how ruthless and dedicated to achieving power at any cost the party is.
But I guess we already knew that.
9 thoughts on “Not QUITE Hypocrisy, But Close Enough For An Eye-Roll: The Democratic Attempt To Reverse An Iowa House Election”
Of course, we did. We all know that Congress – both the House and Senate – was going to be close and the Democrats were bound and determined to take both of them. It’s no surprise at all that they do not believe they should be bound by the same demands they make of others.
Also, the Democrats will argue that these are ballots that should have been counted that are being thrown out, disenfranchising 22 citizens while Trump’s election contests were about NOT counting certain ballots
Well, Eric Swallwell has demanded that voting be as easy as buying a gun.I fully support this. I want to write my state legislators proposing a law that voting will follow the same process the federal government requires for the purchase of a firearm from an FFL. In fact, I think we need to use this as a uniform standard for the exercise of ALL of our Constitutional rights. I want to see which newscasters can’t pass the background check. “Sorry Mr. Acosta, your medical marijuana card disqualifies you from voting, buying a gun, or offering uninformed opinions on CNN.” I also would enjoy “I’m sorry Mr. Baldwin, your long history of dug abuse, your conviction for harassment, and those ‘other’ incidents in your file mean that you will never be allowed to speak publicly about anything ever again.”
I get a rather frustrated by the idea that “the almost 7 million votes by which Biden defeated Trump” are often trotted out when a) it’s the electroal college that matters, and b) of the close states needed to flip results in the Electoral College, the vote total represented a total of about 125 thousand votes in a nation of 330 million (or ~ 150M voters – either way, an infinitesimally small amount). The margins were tenths of percentage points of total votes cast in three of those states, and “THE fourth”, Pennsylvania, a change of just over 1% of total votes cast would’ve made that a Trump state. 125 thousand votes changing the outcome is a lot closer than 7 million. If those states were flipped, then we’d be reading about how terrible it is that Trump was still president when he lost the popular vote by 7 million. And just a 10% swing in voter preference in states close enough to matter flips the electoral count, but, since the medi… er, Democr… er, Demediacrats pushed down the Biden corruption and dementia, here we are.
And in the coulda woulda shoulda column, that 7 million is largely made up of California and New York, where, if the friends and relatives of my Illinois girlfriend are representative of the thought process, any non-democrat approved policy, point, or thought will never be considered (because bias does ineed make one stupid). But I digress.
Anyway, the analogoy by the Illinois Republican is strong as all hell, as is your point about what Democrats are willing to do. Sanctity for me, but not for thee….
I know, but you have to admit that being 7 votes from a win and losing by 7 million, electoral college or not, is a hard analogy to take seriously.
I took his point to be the sanctity of certification. 7 votes or 7 million doesn’t matter if the point is they were certified.
My recollection of the votes here is, like Florida from years ago, several recounts were performed IAW the vote count rules and the result was the same after every recount.
Sanctity is sanctity, can’t put a number on it.
Iowa’s districting policies are among the fairest in the country. Our voting systems – based on what friends who have worked the elections have said – are among the most difficult to manipulate. And our lawmakers are much more about process and law than a good many other states. If twenty-two ballots were disqualified, that’s probably really the case and there’s legitimate reason for it. If our election officials report that Rita Hart lost by six votes, then she lost.
But the Democratic Party doesn’t care about Iowa, its voters (particularly in the 2nd district), or the decisions they made at the ballot box. The Democratic Party doesn’t care about our laws, the electoral safeguards we have in place, or the integrity of the people that managed the process. The Democratic Party has no interest in respecting states’ rights in general. The Democratic Party believes that a loss is really a win when a Democrat is the loser. The Democratic Party believes it is the sole arbiter in matters where votes are tallied. The Democratic Party cares not a whit about dissent or the rising anger.
The Democratic Party reminds me a lot of George III back in 1760s and 1770s. He laughed at a bunch of piddling Colonists who were angry with the way they were systematically being silenced. He did what he wanted with his eyes and ears covered, and when dissent was raised, he just turned the screws more tightly, knowing he had the most powerful military in the world at his fingertips, ready to step in and demolish the rabble should it rise.
And then the Colonists got really angry and, with a little help and some fortuitous circumstances, stunned George and the British and threw them out. The Democratic Party continues to sow the wind and one day, “Colonists” could rise up and, two-and-a-half centuries later, repeat the stunner. And if it happens, it will not turn out well for the Left.
I have brought this out before: George III did not “[have] the most powerful military in the world at his fingertips”, thus:-
– While of high quality, it was small even by European standards.
– It wasn’t at his disposal (that had been sorted out in the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution).
– It was committed in various ways, e.g. the Dutch refused to release the “Scots Hollanders” despite the terms of the treaty that let the Dutch have them.
– Even the Royal Navy was not yet strong enough to be able to cope with France and Spain combined (rebel victory wasn’t “with a little help” – look into the Mediterranean operations and the invasion threat; “threw them out” isn’t how it ended either, as military operations could have been continued indefinitely had economic resources permitted, making it a “Germany 1918” sort of outcome – a very real victory, but gained otherwise).
And so on.
So the Democrats are pulling out all the stops again? Nothing new here. But my fear is: What’s next? They will stop at nothing — either in terms of elections or pursuing their agenda. We’ll just look for more, with trepidation.