While Democrats say what’s happening in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District is nothing like Trump’s lies about widespread fraud and a stolen election that ultimately led to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, but they are aware of the optics. to possibly start a member of Congress the opposing party nominated by officials of the two elections as winners.
“The critical issue is if you go to a court forum, bring evidence, bring evidence,” Raskin told CNN.
But Hart’s campaign argued that if 22 other legal ballots were counted, she would win the race by nine votes rather than lose it by six. As the House makes the ultimate ‘judge’ of its own election by the Constitution, Hart filed an unusual petition to investigate her claims and put them in their place.
Republicans are furious that she led her case to a friendly audience in the Democratic House, rather than to the courts, saying it was a hard-line attempt by Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, to win her razor-sharp majority with an extra seat give.
“They complained because Republicans would not tell people that Biden won the election on November 4, the day after the election, and now they are playing this game? It just does not add up,” said Chuck Grassley, the state. his longtime GOP senator.
But Democrats say there is nothing unpleasant about using a process outlined by federal law that gives her the chance to present her case to Congress.
“We can not worry about optics,” said North Carolina Rep. GK Butterfield, who sits in the Home Panel and considers the challenge. “We need to review the evidence and see where it leads us.”
Raskin, a member of the committee, underestimated how the public could view the matter if the House reverses the election. “We live in a cynical time, but that does not mean we all have to give in,” he said. “We just have to do our job.”
The lawyers for the two parties have until Monday to send their initial instructions to a House panel, which voted on party lines last week to consider the case. The House, which controls the Democrats 219-211, can finally decide the election. The chair of the House Administration Committee, Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, said in an interview that she hopes the matter will be resolved in the spring.
Democrats can then get a controversial vote just months after defending the civil servants who certified the 2020 presidential election. Some Democrats may be uneasy about the prospect.
Louis Correa, a Blue Dog Democrat who sits on the judicial committee, said he wanted to “look at the facts” about “what motivates Congress to look at something that should be a state issue.”
“I want to see what compelling reasons there are for the federations to get involved,” he said. “I think these are issues that are currently probably best left to the state level.”
The vote could be particularly difficult for Democrats such as representatives Jared Golden of Maine and Cindy Axne of Iowa, who could face difficult re-election campaigns in 2022.
Golden, who neatly defeated a Republican president who challenged his loss in court in 2018, told CNN that so far he has not had a problem with the House Administration Committee’s actions.
“My instinct is that it’s always best to count every vote, to look under every stone,” Golden said. “I think it’s best 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 legislature as a liability in the 2022 terms.
Iowa Senator Joni Ernst said in an interview that Hart’s challenge endangered the only remaining Iowa Democrat in Congress – Axne.
Ernst asks, ‘Where does Cindy Axne say,’ This is an outrage and the Iowa voters spoke? ‘”
Axne’s spokeswoman told CNN in a statement released by the congresswoman in December. Axne said at the time that Hart had the “constitutional and legal grounds to pursue her case”. “I support a transparent process that ensures that every vote cast properly is counted in this match,” she added.
A rare overview of the House of an election victory
“Our focus is on the fact that we have a certificate of election, and that there was a process that Hart could choose based on legislation, administered by judges, which she bypassed in favor of one passed by her own political party is run, Ostergren said.
“The argument on their 22 ballot papers is almost exclusively that state law should not matter,” he added. “That’s a pretty worrying argument to make.”
Democrats argued that after the state certification of the race for Hart, there was not enough time to take her case to court to meet a December deadline. Marc Elias, a Hart lawyer who led the Democratic efforts against Trump-inspired lawsuits to block Biden’s victory, did not respond to requests for comment.
“Voters who cast their ballots legally in this election deserve to have their voices heard and we will continue to make sure that is the case,” Hart spokeswoman Riley Kilburg said. “It is a historically close race and we appreciate that the committee takes seriously the need to ensure that every vote in this race is counted by following this legal process.”
Republicans say Democrats are trying to steal the seat.
“Rita Hart and Speaker Pelosi are trying to undermine democracy,” said Mike Berg, spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Every Democratic member must condemn this biased power grab.”
Lofgren said they were simply ‘complying with the law and the Constitution’.
“You just have to do it on the facts,” she said.
Other Democrats on the panel said the IDP attacks should not deter them from reviewing the case.
“I doubt the Republicans’ ability to cooperate with what is actually happening, never with the facts,” said California Representative Pete Aguilar.
Democrats said the affairs of Trump and Hart could not be otherwise.
“I think you compare apples to oranges,” said Democratic strategist Jeff Link. “Trump has been trying to find ballot papers that do not exist. In this case, there are 22 votes cast legally that were not counted. So this is a different situation.”
Pelosi repeated just as much to ABC over the weekend.
“That they should call anyone hypocritical about the election when two-thirds of them in the House vote against it is not the acceptance of Joe Biden’s presidency – it’s just who they are,” Pelosi said.
Republicans say, however, that the House panel, which is divided between six Democrats and three GOP members, must hold the final decision in the hands of Iowans.
“If six votes are not good enough for Marianette Miller-Meeks to be named the winner, have a certificate and undergo a dual version in Iowa, how are six party votes in the smallest committee in Congress enough reason to want of Iowa’s voters? ‘says Rodney Davis, Illinois’ representative, the Republican on the committee.
Sarah Fortinsky and Annie Grayer contributed.