The Miller-Meeks legal team filed a dismissal motion last month, arguing that “more than a century of precedent” required Hart to exhaust all state-level appeals before taking her case to Congress.
However, the federal law of 1969, according to which Hart questions the election result, does not require that all state legal challenges be exhausted. The house is not necessarily bound by previous precedents, either.
Support local journalism
Your membership enables our reporting.
Separately, Miller-Meeks attorney Alan Ostergren alleges Hart failed to prove she was eligible for the seat, arguing that her attorneys “picked” ballots in her favor, which are routine election administration issues raised by every election occur in every county. However, Miller-Meeks’ motion to dismiss did not contain any additional untold votes.
Speaking to reporters last month, Ostergren said the legal team has not yet reached the point of “providing specific examples.”
“These kinds of questions would be investigated,” said Ostergren, should the House of Representatives Administrative Committee decide to take up and hear the merits of Hart’s competitive petition.
He didn’t return a message on Wednesday asking for a comment.