While Democrats say what is happening in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional district is nothing like Trump’s lies about widespread fraud and a stolen election that led to the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol, they are aware from the perspective of potentially expelling a member of Congress. the opposing party that was declared the winner by bipartisan election officials.
“The critic is when you go to a judicial forum, bring some evidence, bring some evidence with you,” Raskin told CNN.
But Hart’s campaign argued that if 22 other legally issued ballots were counted, she would win the contest by nine votes, rather than losing it by six. And since the Constitution makes the House the final “judge” of his own elections, Hart has made an unusual petition to investigate his claims and put him in his place.
Republicans are outraged that she took her case to a friendly hearing in the Democratic-led House rather than the courts, and say it is a blatant attempt by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to fill her slim majority with an extra seat. .
“They complained because the Republicans didn’t tell people that Biden won the election on November 4, the day after the election, and now they’re playing this game? It just doesn’t matter,” said Chuck Grassley, a longtime Republican senator.
But Democrats say there is nothing unpleasant about Hart using a process established by federal law, giving her the chance to present her case before Congress.
“We can’t worry about the optics,” said North Carolina representative GK Butterfield, who is on the House panel considering the challenge. “We need to review the evidence and see where it takes us.”
Raskin, a member of the committee, downplayed how the public could see the matter if the House revoked the election. “We live in a cynical and tiring time, but that does not mean that we should all give in,” he said. “We just have to do our job.”
Lawyers on both sides have until Monday to send their opening notes to a House panel, which voted on party lines last week to consider the case. The House, which Democrats control by a margin of 219-211, could ultimately decide the election. The chairwoman of the House Management Committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, said in an interview that she hopes the case will be resolved this spring.
Democrats can then face a controversial vote a few months after defending the state officials who certified the 2020 presidential election. Some Democrats may be uncomfortable with the prospect.
California deputy Lou Correa, a Blue Dog Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to “examine the facts” about “what motivates Congress to consider something that should be a state issue.”
“I want to see what are the compelling reasons for the feds to get involved,” he said. “I think these are issues that, now, probably should be left at the state level.”
The vote can be particularly tricky for Democrats like Maine’s deputies Jared Golden and Iowa’s Cindy Axne, who may face re-election contests in 2022.
Golden, who narrowly defeated a Republican president in 2018 who contested his defeat in court, told CNN that he has had no problems with the actions of the House Management Committee so far.
“My instinct is that, in these kinds of things, it is always better to count all the votes, look under every stone,” said Golden. “I think it is better for the incumbent or the challenger to allow the process to go as far as there are legal options to do so.”
But Republicans are eager to use any Democratic vote to oust a legislator as a handicap in the middle of the 2022 term.
Iowa Republican Party Senator Joni Ernst said in an interview that Hart’s challenge puts Iowa’s only remaining Democrat in Congress – Axne – in “jeopardy”.
Ernst asked, “Where is Cindy Axne saying, ‘Is this an outrage and did Iowa voters speak?’ ”
Axne’s spokesman indicated to CNN a statement that the congresswoman released in December. Axne said at the time that Hart has “constitutional and legal grounds for pursuing” his case. “I support a transparent process that ensures that all votes properly expressed in this contest are counted,” she added.
A rare House review of an electoral victory
“Our focus is on the fact that we have a certificate of election and that there was a process that Hart could have chosen that was based on the law, administered by judges, which she bypassed in favor of one administered by her own political party,” said Ostergren .
“The argument on its 22 ballots is almost exclusively that state law shouldn’t matter,” he added. “This is a very worrying argument to make.”
Democrats argued that there was not enough time after the race’s state certification for Hart to take his case in court to meet the December deadline. Marc Elias, Hart’s lawyer who helped lead Democratic efforts against Trump-inspired lawsuits to overturn Biden’s victory, did not respond to requests for comment.
“Voters who voted legally in this election deserve to have their voices heard and we will continue to work to ensure that this is the case,” said Hart’s spokesman, Riley Kilburg. “This is a historically fierce dispute and we recognize that the committee is taking seriously the need to ensure that all votes are counted in this dispute, following this legal process.”
Republicans say Democrats are trying to steal the seat.
“Rita Hart and spokesperson Pelosi are trying to subvert democracy,” said Congressional National Republican Committee spokesman Mike Berg. “Every Democratic member should condemn this seizure of party power.”
Lofgren said they are simply “following the law and the Constitution”.
“You have to do this only on the basis of the facts,” she said.
Other Democrats on the panel said that the Republican Party’s attacks should not prevent them from reviewing the case.
“I never question the ability of Republicans to confuse what’s really going on with the facts,” said California deputy Pete Aguilar.
Democrats said the Trump and Hart cases could not be more different.
“I think you’re comparing apples to oranges,” said Iowa Democratic strategist Jeff Link. “Trump was trying to find banknotes that didn’t exist. In this case, there are 22 banknotes that were legitimately released that weren’t counted. So it’s a different situation.”
Pelosi reiterated this to ABC this weekend.
“They called someone a hypocrite about the elections when two-thirds of them in the House voted against accepting Joe Biden’s presidency – well, it’s just who they are,” said Pelosi.
But Republicans say the House panel, split between six Democrats and three Republican Party members, must keep the final decision in the hands of Iowa citizens.
“If six votes are not good enough for Marianette Miller-Meeks to be declared a winner, have a certificate and go through several bipartisan recounts in Iowa, as six party votes on the smallest Congressional committee are sufficient reasons to overturn the will of Iowa voters. ? “said Illinois deputy Rodney Davis, the rating Republican on the committee.
Sarah Fortinsky and Annie Grayer contributed.