The Quad-City Times’s editorial board supported Iowa Democrat Rita Hart in her House race but has raised objections to the ongoing efforts to overturn her defeat through political machinations in D.C.
Though the Times endorsed Hart’s bid to represent Iowa’s Second Congressional District in 2020, the editorial board expressed concerns about her efforts to get the election overturned in D.C. while bypassing Iowa courts, flatly stating “we objected.”
“It was our belief that Iowa elections ought to be settled in Iowa, not by politically-conflicted bodies far away from Iowans and their interests,” the board wrote. “But instead of going to the state Supreme Court to air her election challenge, Hart went directly to the House, which is controlled by her own party.”
The editorial board continued:
Over the last week there also were new documents filed by the two sides with the House Administration Committee. And recently, the committee postponed a decision on Miller-Meeks’ request that the case be dismissed for bypassing the state’s court system. The Republican’s campaign cited House precedent. Hart’s campaign, which says there wasn’t the time to go to the courts, responded. But rather than settle this dispute, the committee voted along partisan lines to postpone it and move to the merits.
That’s backwards. Why proceed if Hart’s appeal is improper in the first place?
We also note that, early on, there was discussion about a full recount by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office that raised the possibility of a neutral arbiter playing a role in settling this. But we have heard precious little about that lately.
The board wrote they believe “properly cast votes should be counted, but we are concerned about who does the counting, and under what terms. And are these the only ballots at issue?”
The board’s concerns primarily address Hart’s approach, with them noting the partisan alignment of the House as a factor favoring Hart.
Trying to overturn the election is a dangerous step in their eyes and “would undermine confidence here that the will of the people was done. Nothing we’ve heard so far has changed our view.”