Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell complained Thursday that House Democrats are “trying to overturn a state-certified election,” The Hill reported on March 18, 2021 (read story here).
It’s sorta true. But it’s a House matter, it’s constitutional, and has precedents (594 of them, to be exact — that’s the number of times the House has intervened in a contested House election). And it’s not remotely comparable to GOP efforts, just two months ago, to overturn multiple state-certified results in the presidential election. Those efforts make any Republican criticism of the House review of Iowa’s 2nd congressional district election intensely hypocritical.
That criticism also is premature, because the House is only conducting a routine followup on a petition filed by the losing candidate. That doesn’t imply it will seat her, and unseat the apparent winner.
These are the certified results:
- Marianette Miller-Meeks (R): 196,964
- Rita Hart (D): 196,958
- Write-In: 703
At issue are 22 votes said to have been legally cast but not counted. Hart claims she would win by 9 votes if they were.
Unlike Trump’s fabricated claims of “fraudulent” votes, this dispute involves actual votes. And unlike Trump’s decisive loss, this election is actually close, with the candidates only 6 votes apart in the certified results.
Republicans are acting like state certified results are sacrosanct. They’re not. They can be challenged in courts, and the House and Senate are final arbiters of who is seated in their respective chambers. Of course, that power shouldn’t be used arbitrarily or in a partisan manner, although we recently saw Republicans attempt to do just that, but should only be exercised impartially, with due process, to ensure the candidate who actually won is seated. In making this determination, the House should go by the state’s election rules, only concern itself with the accuracy of the vote count, and not seek to override those rules.
In this case, Republicans are complaining in part because Hart bypassed the courts and went straight to Congress with her complaint about not counting those 22 votes. They may have a point, or they may not. That’s complicated. (Read more details about it here.)
My gut reaction is that House Democrats should let it go. Some, in fact, are expressing reservations. The optics of changing the results, however technically fair and just that may be, are caustic in the current political environment. And Miller-Meeks probably has a good point when she says some of her votes weren’t counted, too.
Elections aren’t perfect, can’t be made perfect, and there’s a process in place for correcting flaws and errors. While this process is a part of it, there comes a time to say what’s done is done and accept it. This election, in my judgment, falls in that category. This isn’t at all like what happened in North Carolina’s 9th congressional district, where there was clear-cut criminal fraud (read about that here). This appears to be a squabble over interpreting “voter intent” as to certain ballots, much like Florida’s 2000 election “hanging chad” controversies. Congress should be a court of last resort for setting aright clearcut wrongs, not a venue in which to relitigate mundane election disputes.
In a perfect world, elections are run impartially, and deference is given to certified results. The less confidence in election administration, the less deference. Here, there was bipartisan certification, which weakens the argument for rejecting the results. By accepting them, Democrats will make certified results easier to defend against assaults like Trump’s in future elections. It’s a principled position that says, “We’ll accept the will of the voters, even when we lose.”
Democracy is based on the majority principle. In a tied election, where there’s no clearcut “will of the voters,” designating a “majority” is somewhat arbitrary but necessary so the electoral system can function. When a tie happens, it’s a metaphorical coin flip. In our system, if one candidate has 1 more vote in the final count, he or she wins. That’s how we resolve it. In case of actual tie, our election laws often decree an actual coin flip, recognizing that at some point the system has to stop debating the result and decide on a result, even if it’s arbitrary. That’s what you have here.
McConnell doesn’t have an argument. He’s an enemy of democracy, and his party severely games elections in its quest for one-party rule. They are hypocrites, and undeserving of fair play.
Nevertheless, the Democrats should take the high road, because standing up for fair and impartial elections helps protect our democracy from the likes of McConnell and his fellow Republicans.
Photo: Mitch McConnell is called “The Turtle” because he often resembles one