Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

6-vote Iowa race is fresh test for election integrity, trust in Congress

Iowa congressional candidate Rita Hart

Democrat Rita Hart wants the House of Representatives to overturn her loss in Iowa's 2nd District.

Caroline Brehman/Getty Images

One lesson about elections reinforced time and again this year is that states get to decide almost all their own rules, Washington bigfooting with its own decisions only rarely.

The closest congressional contest in four decades looks to be one of those times.

A Democrat who fell a scant six votes short, in a district covering southeastern Iowa, says she will challenge the result in the House itself — triggering a highly unusual process that threatens to eradicate any small measure of bipartisan collaboration that might germinate in the new Congress.


The last race that was single-digit close was decided 36 years ago by the House. And the fight over what got dubbed the "Bloody 8th" district of Indiana was one of the bellwether moments in the transformation of the House from a place of policymaking collegiality to a chamber wracked by dysfunction and scorched-earth partisanship. Democrats who already held a significant majority voted to seat one of their own despite final results in favor of the Republican, and the GOP collectively vowed to neither forgive nor forget.

The move by the aggrieved Iowa candidate, former state Sen. Rita Hart, pushes Speaker Nancy Pelosi toward a highly awkward choice — with consequences for the public's rattled faith in the integrity of elections as well as its dim view of Congress.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Arranging a party-line vote to seat Hart would pad ever so slightly the smallest Democratic majority since World War II, probably five seats without her. But to do so the party would need to sacrifice any hope of GOP comity next year while weathering passionate and plausible allegations of hypocrisy in the pursuit of power.

That's because the move would require the House to disregard the finalized election results in Iowa, at the same time Democrats are of once voice about how the presidential race is over and Joe Biden is definitely president-elect now that all six states where President Trump is contesting his defeat have certified their results.

The Republican winner, at this point, is state Sen. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a physician who has lost two previous bids for the seat. A recount finished Monday cut her original victory margin of 47 votes down to only six out of 394,000 cast, and that result was certified.

Hart could have appealed under a state procedure that would have given her only until Tuesday to make her case to a specially convened panel of five judges, a timeline she said was implausibly fast.

Instead, she will contest the election under a 1969 federal law that sets out procedures for the House to use. It says the state's result is presumed valid and she must prove Iowa got it wrong. Hart contends several batches of valid votes were improperly excluded from the state's tabulations.

She has a month to file her complaint, at which point the House Administration Committee could conduct an investigation of its own for as long as it wants before making a recommendation to the full House, which would decide who to seat by a simple majority vote. In the meantime, the House would decide if Miller-Meeks could occupy the 2nd District seat, which takes in Dubuque and Iowa City.

The Constitution says the House is the ultimate judge of the "elections, returns and qualifications" of its members.

In southwestern Indiana in 1984, the GOP secretary of state certified a 34-vote victory for Republican Richard McIntyre over Democratic incumbent Frank McCloskey. A recount expanded McIntyre's margin to 418 votes, but Democrats contended the process was spoiled by different standards used to accept or reject ballots in the 15 counties.

The House refused to seat McIntyre during its inquiry, which culminated in the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the audring and investigative arm of Congress, conducting its own recount and deciding McCloskey had won by four votes. Republicans walked out in protest after the House voted to seat him. (He was ultimately defeated a decade later.)

The next time the process was pursued to the end was after the 1998 election of California Democrat Loretta Sanchez. The losing GOP incumbent, Bob Dornan, spent 13 months pursuing his allegations of widespread voting by illegal immigrants and found 748 such ballots. But that only cut his margin of defeat down to 180 votes and a Republican-majority House dismissed his claim.

The Iowa congressional contest is not the only race still in dispute. In upstate New York, challenges to more than 2,000 absentee and provisional ballots have not yet been heard a month after Election Day. And a rural county just this week said it had discovered 55 ballots that had not been counted — enough to tip the race between incumbent Democrat Anthony Brindisi and the Republcian he ousted two years ago, Claudia Tenney. At the moment, she is ahead by 12 votes.

Read More

Donald Trump
Remon Haazen/Getty Images

What is Trump really going to do?

President-elect Donald Trump is rapidly turning out names of potential nominees for his incoming administration. Most are strong supporters not only of Trump himself, but also his agenda. It is highly likely that they will be more than happy to help the incoming president implement his wishes.

Trump may also be emboldened by what he perceives to be an electoral mandate (although his final tally came up a bit short of one). Supporters and opponents alike wonder which campaign promises he will keep and which policies he will prioritize. So, what did the voters who supported him want him to do? Data collected for the GW Politics Poll, which I direct with colleagues at George Washington University, provides some insights.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard on stage

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence.

Adam J. Dewey/Anadolu via Getty Images

How a director of national intelligence helps a president stay on top of threats from around the world

In all the arguments over whether President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence is fit for the job, it’s easy to lose sight of why it matters.

It matters a lot. To speak of telling truth to power seems terribly old-fashioned these days, but as a veteran of White House intelligence operations, I know that is the essence of the job.

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting with signs

Hundreds of supporters of trans rights rallied outside the Supreme Court on Dec. 4. The court will consider a case determining whether bans on gender-affirming care for children are unconstitutional.

Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Supreme Court ruling on trans care is literally life or death for teens

Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether banning essential health care for trans youth is constitutional. What the justices (and lawmakers in many states) probably don’t realize is that they’re putting teenage lives at risk when they increase anti-trans measures. A recent report linked anti-transgender laws to increased teen suicide attempts among trans and gender-expansive youth.

In some cases, attempted suicide rates increased by an astonishing 72 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mother offering a glass of water to her toddler son.
vitapix/Getty Images

Water fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay – how growing opposition threatens a 70-year-old health practice

Driving through downtown Dallas, you might see a striking banner hanging at the U-turn bridge, near the Walnut Hill exit on Central Expressway (US 75): “Stop Fluoridation!” Below it, other banners demand action and warn of supposed dangers.

It’s not the first time fluoride has been at the center of public debate.

Fluoride alternatives

For those who prefer to avoid fluoride, there are alternatives to consider. But they come with challenges.

Fluoride-free toothpaste is one option, but it is less effective at preventing cavities compared with fluoride-containing products. Calcium-based treatments, like hydroxyapatite toothpaste, are gaining popularity as a fluoride alternative, though research on their effectiveness is still limited.

Diet plays a crucial role too. Cutting back on sugary snacks and drinks can significantly reduce the risk of cavities. Incorporating foods like crunchy vegetables, cheese and yogurt into your diet can help promote oral health by stimulating saliva production and providing essential nutrients that strengthen tooth enamel.

However, these lifestyle changes require consistent effort and education – something not all people or communities have access to.

Community programs like dental sealant initiatives can also help, especially for children. Sealants are thin coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of teeth, preventing decay in high-risk areas. While effective, these programs are more resource-intensive and can’t replicate the broad, passive benefits of water fluoridation.

Ultimately, alternatives exist, but they place a greater burden on people and might not address the needs of the most vulnerable populations.

Should fluoridation be a personal choice?

The argument that water fluoridation takes away personal choice is one of the most persuasive stances against its use. Why not leave fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash, giving people the freedom to use it or not, some argue.

This perspective is understandable, but it overlooks the broader goals of public health. Fluoridation is like adding iodine to salt or vitamin D to milk. These are measures that prevent widespread health issues in a simple, cost-effective way. Such interventions aren’t about imposing choices; they’re about providing a baseline of protection for everyone.

Without fluoridated water, low-income communities would bear the brunt of increased dental disease. Children, in particular, would suffer more cavities, leading to pain, missed school days and costly treatments. Public health policies aim to prevent these outcomes while balancing individual freedoms with collective well-being.

For those who wish to avoid fluoride, alternatives like bottled or filtered water are available. At the same time, policymakers should continue to ensure that fluoridation levels are safe and effective, addressing concerns transparently to build trust.

As debates about fluoride continue, the main question is how to best protect everyone’s oral health. While removing fluoride might appeal to those valuing personal choice, it risks undoing decades of progress against tooth decay.

Whether through fluoridation or other methods, oral health remains a public health priority. Addressing it requires thoughtful, evidence-based solutions that ensure equity, safety and community well-being.The Conversation

Noureldin is a clinical professor of cariology, prevention and restorative dentistry at Texas A&M University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keep ReadingShow less