Right now Republicans are trying to spin the House’s review of the results in Iowa’s Second District race.  But here is what the Republicans are not saying.

First, the Iowa race is not the only race pending in the House.  The Republican candidate in the Fourteenth District of Illinois has also filed an election contest even though he lost by more than 1,000 votes.  By contrast, the margin in Iowa is only six votes.  Yet Republicans have only attempted to dismiss the Iowa contest.

Second, election contests are not unusual.  While most election contests go nowhere, losing candidates sometimes file election contests.  Over the past ninety years, there have been 100 election contests filed.

Third, both the Constitution and federal law give Congress the final say over the returns of the elections of members.  Article I, Section 5 expressly states that each House of Congress is the “judge of the elections” of its members.  And the Federal Contested Elections Act sets forth the procedure to be followed when the losing candidates wants to have the House or Senate review the election results.

Fourth, at the present time, the Federal Contested Elections Act does not require the losing candidate to first use state procedures to contest the election or require Congress to give any deference to state agencies or state law.  If Republicans want to change the law to include such requirements, Senate Republicans are welcome to stop obstructing the “For the People Act” and suggest including such revisions to the Federal Contested Elections Act as part of the “For the People Act.”  Of course, as the Minnesota Senate Race showed in 2008, an election contest can take several months to resolve in court.  So requiring a candidate to proceed in court first could mean that an election contest in Congress is not resolved until a House term is almost up.

Fifth, at the present time, the leading candidate in the Iowa race has just filed her answer to the petition for an election contest.   There is a process to be followed.  Over the next several months, the relevant House Committee will hear evidence (and there are some problems with what happened in Iowa).  It is one thing to claim — which the Republicans are not doing — that the petition does not state any valid grounds.  It is another thing to prejudge what the evidence will show.

Sixth, there is a difference between following the proper process when you have evidence and using the process to obstruct things when you do not have any evidence.  The reality is that there is no perfect election.  And minor flaws become more signficant as the margin narrows.  The current margin in Iowa is roughly equivalent to a 400 vote margin in a state like California or a 60 vote margin in a state like Arizona or Wisconsin.

At the end of the process, the Democrats may be faced with a tough choice.  The evidence could show that the Democrat actually won.  If that is the case, the “right” vote will be to seat the Democrat.  But the easy vote would be to leave the Republican in office to avoid claims that Democrats are trying to overturn an election.  Of course, if the evidence shows that the Republican won, then this whole “controversy” is just  a tempest in a teapot that will quickly disappear.