The Democratic House found a way to unseat the winner and put the loser, the Democrat in the congressional seat. They’re going to pass new rules, and since the SCOTUS seems to think anyone can do anything with an election, they likely cannot be a player in this.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) was declared the winner of Iowa’s second congressional district over Democratic challenger Rita Hart last November by just six votes — 196,964 to 196,958.
After Iowa certified Miller-Meeks’ win, Hart appealed to the House by filing a Notice of Contest.
Her campaign claims that legitimate votes weren’t counted.
This is from the party that won’t allow Republicans to say the 2020 election was a fraud.
The Iowa City Press-Citizen reported 22 “legally-cast, uncounted votes” – Hart says they will make her the winner.
Lawyers for Hart’s campaign allege the Democrat would have won the race by just nine votes had the 22 votes not been excluded.
IN STEPS THE CORRUPT PELOSI HOUSE ADMIN COMMITTEE
They set up a process to make it happen.
Politico reported, “The Friday meeting was brief. Members unanimously agreed to a resolution that establishes procedures the committee will abide by as it considers recent elections contested under the act.”
They are formally beginning an investigative process that could result in Miller-Meeks losing her seat if Hart’s claims are confirmed.
They are subordinating the peoples’ vote to their will. That’s what they accused DJT of doing.
To deal with past contested elections, the Administration Committee, chaired by far-far-left Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), has set up a task force to oversee an investigation or recount. That panel would make a recommendation based on its findings to the entire House, which could then vote on who should hold the seat.
Hart’s thrilled and claims she cares about the voters.
PELOSI CHANGES THE RULES! THEY PLANNED IT!
House Administration Committee ranking member Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) warned the development might result in a “dangerous precedent.”
“I can’t think of a worst first step this committee could take in a new Congress than to waste taxpayer dollars by moving forward with overturning this election,” he said, Politico reported.
Hart’s campaign revealed in early December that she intended to bypass Iowa courts instead of the Democrat-controlled House. Hart complained that there were “limitations in Iowa law.”
The Hart campaign’s decision earned scorn from Miller-Meeks’ campaign and even Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R).
“Rita Hart has chosen a political process controlled by Nancy Pelosi over a legal process controlled by Iowa judges. All Iowans should be outraged by this decision,” the Miller-Meeks campaign said, the Des Moines Register reported.
Reynolds similarly reacted, “By heading straight to a Democratic-controlled Congress, Hart is attempting to undermine the voice of Iowans.”
Democrats want to corrupt the process even more than they have.
- Two were rejected because the absentee voters died before their ballots were counted on Election Day
- Two envelopes were not sealed. Both were replaced with new ballots, but only one of those was returned
- One ballot was rejected because the person was not an active, registered voter
- Two ballots were rejected because the voters had moved out of state
- Four were rejected because they either did not have a postmark or were received after a state deadline of noon on Nov. 9
- Three were rejected because the voter did not sign the affidavit envelope before mailing back their absentee ballot
- Six were provisional ballots that were rejected because the person voted in the wrong precinct or could not provide proof of their identity
- Three envelopes were rejected because they contained no ballot inside, and are still considered a rejected ballot event though there is no ballot that can be counted