What happens next with ethics inquiry into Miller-Meeks?
An ethics complaint seeking an investigation into Iowa Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks' voting address may make handy campaign fodder for Democrats heading into the November election, but little may actually come of the complaint, based on history.
A LeClaire resident has asked the federal Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate the GOP incumbent's voting address.
After the 2020 census, Miller-Meeks' home in Wapello County's Ottumwa was redistricted into Iowa's 3rd District, which includes the Des Moines metro and rural south central Iowa. Miller-Meeks said at the time she would not sell her house in Ottumwa but would take up residence in Iowa's newly drawn 1st District, which mostly overlapped with the district she represented before the 2020 redistricting.
In her complaint, LeClaire resident Joyce Kuehl alleges Miller-Meeks has violated state law and voted illegally in multiple elections. Miller-Meeks has repeatedly registered to vote and voted in Scott County — but multiple public records, including tax records and Miller-Meeks' own campaign forms, indicate her primary address is in Wapello County.
Miller-Meeks campaign has not publicly responded to the allegations.
In August, The Gazette sent Miller-Meeks' congressional office spokesperson a list of detailed questions about her voting address and where she primarily resides. Miller-Meeks' spokesperson responded to The Gazette, "The congresswoman's residence is in Davenport" but did not answer other questions.
Kuehl did not return a message seeking comment.
The Gazette looked into how the Office of Congressional Ethics operates and reviews alleged misconduct by House members, and how it has handled similar complaints in the past.
In late October 2022, Miller-Meeks changed her voter registration from her longtime Ottumwa address to the address of the home of Republican state Sen. Chris Cournoyer in LeClaire.
According to Scott County voting records, Miller-Meeks voted in the 2022 general election in Scott County. Just before the June 4 primary election this year, Miller-Meeks changed her registered voting address to a Davenport apartment on Jersey Ridge Road and voted in the primary.
According to property records, Miller-Meeks and her husband, Curtis Meeks, have owned 33 acres in Ottumwa since March 2003 and constructed a home in 2004. The most recent property tax statement lists that Miller-Meeks and her husband received a homestead credit for the property in the past two tax periods. Miller-Meeks also reported in congressional disclosure reports in 2022 and 2023 that she has a mortgage on her "personal residence in Ottumwa," and campaign contributions list her Ottumwa address as her mailing address.
Federal rules don't require members of Congress to live in the district they represent, just in the same state. Iowa law, though, requires voters to register to vote at their primary address and vote in the county where they primarily reside.
Kuehl alleges that if Miller-Meeks provided an incorrect address for voting purposes, she violated U.S. House rules that require members to "conduct (themselves) at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditability on the House."
Iowa law permits residents to bring challenges to voter registration at the county level, though no challenges had been brought forward about Miller-Meeks' address, Scott County Auditor Kerri Tompkins said in an email to The Gazette.
What's happened since
The complaint is being reviewed by the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent, non-partisan entity charged with investigating alleged misconduct against members, officers and employees of the House. It refers matters to the House Committee on Ethics when its eight-member board of private citizens believes it is appropriate. The board must authorize each stage of the investigative process.
The board includes six voting members and two alternates. The House speaker and minority leader each appoint three members and an alternate.
Office staff consists primarily of lawyers and other professionals with expertise in ethics law and investigations. It has jurisdiction to investigate any alleged violation of a "law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct" committed by House member — including state law.
There are two stages in the investigative review process that require board approval: a preliminary review, and a second-phase review. The preliminary review is limited to 30 days, during which the staff investigates whether a violation may have occurred. A second-phase review is limited to 45 days, with the option for the board to extend it by 14 days. At any point during the preliminary review, four members of the board may vote to terminate a review.
Except in limited circumstances, the House Committee on Ethics must eventually release the report and findings. Public release is required within 45 days, unless the committee votes to extend by another 45 days. The release of the report and findings also can be delayed if the committee decides to create a subcommittee to investigate the matter. In that case, the report must still be released within a year.
But if the board recommends dismissal and the committee also votes to dismiss the complaint, the report does not have to be made public. Release of a report also may be delayed if there is a related ongoing law enforcement investigation.
The Office of Congressional Ethics has investigated related complaints in the past, though little has come of them.
In November 2009, the office found former California U.S. Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark listed his Washington, D.C.-area home as his principal residence on Maryland tax forms. By doing so, Stark received state and county homestead tax credits. And any annual increase in his home assessments were capped at 10%.
In order to qualify for the tax credit, Maryland law requires the home be used as the owner's "principal residence" — where the homeowner regularly resides and is designated for voting, obtaining a driver's license and filing income tax returns. Stark, though, paid California resident taxes, had a California driver's license and was registered to vote in California.
While his conduct may have violated Maryland law and the House ethics rules for misrepresenting information to obtain the tax credit, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct — which the Ethic Committee was then called — issued a report finding no further action was warranted.
In 2018, the Office of Congressional Ethics referred allegations to the House Ethics Committee that Republican former Iowa U.S. Rep. Rod Blum violated House rules. In February, the Associated Press reported Blum failed to disclose his ownership role in a Dubuque firm. The AP reported the firm, Tin Moon, helped companies cited for federal food and drug safety violations bury their Food and Drug Administration warning letters below positive internet search results, and that Blum's top congressional staffer was featured in a false video testimonial promoting the company's services.
The House ethics panel launched an inquiry in July of that year and extended the inquiry in early September. In December, the office released its report and findings — as well as Blum's response — while the House Ethics Committee announced it would further review the allegations of the lame duck congressman. Blum lost re-election in 2018 to Democrat Abby Finkenauer, and the committee's jurisdiction expired when he left office.
The board said there was "substantial reason to believe that Rep. Blum's private company utilized deceptive, false, or unsubstantiated endorsements and other marketing materials." After being questioned, the company removed Blum's official House photo and testimonial from its website, and changed his title from chief executive officer to "majority shareholder."
Blum called the omission of his Tin Moon holdings an "administrative oversight" and later amended his financial disclosure report. He called the inquiry a "crusade of personal destruction" against him by the "radical left."
Because members of Congress police themselves and are loath to punish one of their own, the likelihood of anything coming about from the Miller-Meeks complaint seems remote, according to ethics experts.
However, should the Office of Congressional Ethics issue a report, it could be used as ammunition by Democrats and other political challengers, should Miller-Meeks run again.
Sarah Watson of the Quad-City Times contributed to this report.
A full deck: 52 members of Congress have announced they will not seek reelection this year
