Democrats Won’t Seat A North Carolina Republican Amid Election Fraud

[Stormy Daniels]

The title of the article seems a little misleading. AFAIK it's the state elections board (now dissolved) which refused to certify the result, thus preventing Harris from being seated. The quoted Democrat just said they would object to him being seated. There was a hearing scheduled which is now apparently in limbo given that the board has been dissolved, but I imagine the outcome will be decided by courts, probably by calling for a new election, or so I would bet given what's been reported. In any case, it's not a question of Democrats refusing to do anything. They don't control the process unilaterally. At this point they are just parties to a legal dispute.

The problem here is that you lack a middle school education level's understanding of how our government works. Each house of Congress is constitutionally designated as the judge of the "elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." Thus, the House can prevent Harris from being seated.

 

[well named]

The problem here is that you lack a middle school education level's understanding of how our government works. Each house of Congress is constitutionally designated as the judge of the "elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." Thus, the House can prevent Harris from being seated.

Yes, I'm aware, but I think the way the headline is written is still somewhat misleading, in that it gives the impression that Democrats are deciding not to seat him for purely partisan reasons. My understanding is that, following Powell v. McCormack (1969), the house can only exercise its Article I Section 5 power to refuse to seat a member on certain grounds, and it may not refuse to seat a properly elected and constitutionally qualified representative. So it's not quite true that the house is the sole judge of its own elections in the sense you are suggesting.

In case it wasn't clear, it seems obvious to me in this case that the House would have constitutional grounds to refuse to seat Harris: the state has not certified the results of the election; he's not properly elected. And I think the evidence of fraud is pretty clear. I support refusing to seat him. Anyway, I don't think HuffPo meant to give the impression that it was some partisan decision not to seat him, but I think a skim of this thread shows people are reading it that way, and that's my objection.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Yes, I'm aware, but I think the way the headline is written is still somewhat misleading, in that it gives the impression that Democrats are deciding not to seat him for purely partisan reasons.

Idiot, the headline clearly states the reason is because of the election fraud. You really need to learn how to read.

 

[Lakhota]

The House cannot seat Mark Harris until he is legally certified by North Carolina - which has not been done.