But Hart is moving the House to overturn the elections, and the House Administrative Committee is currently reviewing the case. POLITICO Playbook reported earlier this week that efforts to overthrow the elections “have been blessed by the top echelons of the House Democratic leadership”.
For spokesman Pelosi and Co. it is “the honor of the election results for you, but not for me”.
The Democratic Congress campaign committee is paying for leading Democratic electoral attorney Marc Elias, who fought Donald Trump in election cases before and after November 3 to represent Hart.
A letter for Miller-Meeks convincingly points to a precedent for the House refusing to hear cases the candidate did not first bring up in state courts.
Elijah’s letter to Hart offers a small apology for avoiding an Iowa competition court. It is said that Hart now knew about all 22 ballot papers that she believed had not been properly discarded by December 1, and that meant there simply wasn’t enough time to go through the court (it could have been from the Chief Justice of the Iowa composed of Supreme Court and four district judges).
Surely the competition court would have recognized the time restrictions and accelerated the process that would have focused on these 22 controversial ballots. If the court couldn’t make a decision in a week to meet the December 8th deadline for a final decision on a contest, the deadline could probably have been postponed. (Hart, who calls for all possible rules regarding ballot papers to be ignored, is in no strong position to stick past deadlines.)
The decision to skip the competition court and go straight to the House of Representatives is transparently an attempt to bypass a body that seeks neutrality in favor of one that does not and avoid a decision based on the Iowa Act, one on the basis of the law to seek partisan interests of fellow Democrats.
This is how it was interpreted by the newspaper offices in Iowa.
Sure enough, Elias basically set the point in black and white. From the last case, when a Democratically controlled house overturned an election (1985 to give a Democrat a seat in Indiana), his letter cites that the committee “certainly is not required” to obey Iowa law, and indeed it is “there are cases when it is indeed bound by justice and justice to deviate from it.”
Hart alleges no fraud or irregularity in examining the ballots that she says should count now, or even partisan favoritism. She just found 22 ballot papers that she wants to count in order to overdo them.
There’s a question about the origins of some of the 22 ballots it highlights, and others are clearly against Iowa law. Five are postal ballot papers whose envelopes were not sealed by law. Another two ballot papers, which by law must be returned by election day, did not reach the districts in which the voters are domiciled in time.
The decisions about these ballot papers were all close calls that election officials, using the law and their best judgment, must make on an ongoing basis.
Incidentally, all but four of the 22 ballot papers are not for Hart by chance. It is safe to assume that a more systematic canvas of the district would produce similar provisions directed against Miller-Meeks.
We should not, however, want narrow elections to be indefinitely litigated and relitated in protracted battles over who can retrospectively and violate the limits of the law in order to find more voters who claim that their ballots were wrongly rejected.
Iowa has a robust and clean electoral system that District 2 voters spoke through.
Overturning her judgment on the basis of a selective, self-serving collection of dubious ballots would be partisan travesty, and that is precisely why Rita Hart is asking the Partisan Democratic House to do so.
The very casual observer could have been forgiven for believing, given their vehemence and passion around Jan. 6, the Democrats sincerely that it was fundamentally wrong to question the legitimacy of the election results that were signed, sealed and presented to Congress.
Marc Elias knew better.