A few weeks a go I wrote about the Democrats’ effort to unseat the Republican winner of an Iowa House race so they could seat the Democrat loser instead. According to the Epoch Times, the effort is moving forward, as Marc Elias, the Democrat attorney for Democrat candidate Rita Hart, argued in a brief to the House Administration Committee that the House has the authority to overturn the election without the parties having to exhaust all legal remedies in Iowa courts first:
Elias says that neither the Federal Contested Elections Act (FCEA) or any other rule adopted by the House required Hart to first bring a contest in state court.
“The plain language of the FCEA does not require a contestant to exhaust all state remedies before filing a notice of contest—a notable omission, given that Congress routinely includes statutory exhaustion requirements in other contexts. The Committee should not read into the FCEA an exhaustion requirement where none exists,” the lawyer argued on Monday.
“Moreover, there is no uniform requirement found in House precedent that a contestant must exhaust every possible state judicial remedy before filing a notice of contest. Indeed, such a requirement would directly intrude upon the House’s constitutional mandate to judge the elections of its members,” he added.
Democrat Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, will take this argument and run with it. She’ll move forward with her scheme to oust the Republican and seat her fellow party member so she can increase her very slim majority.
I argued in my earlier post that if Nancy and the Democrats succeed in overturning this contested election, they will overturn every contested election in their favor as long as they are the party in power. Elias argues himself that the House has a “constitutional mandate to judge elections of its members.” So of course the Pelosi will seize on that and take this “mandate” far as she can so to consolidate as much power as possible, so she can choose who represents Americans instead of American voters themselves.