A Dec. 16 article in the Yakima Herald-Republic states that I am “repeating unspecified concerns” about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. This is simply not true, and frankly I take offense to the allegation that, as a U.S. representative, I would sign my name to a legal document without legitimate reasoning.

These “unspecified” concerns refer to an amicus brief I joined 125 of my colleagues in filing in support of a Supreme Court case, Texas v. Pennsylvania. The brief described several areas of concern – specifically – about the processes by which several state election officials administered the balloting process while encouraging the Supreme Court to examine the situation further and provide appropriate remedy where necessary. Here are the specific issues outlined state by state:

• In Pennsylvania, the secretary of state ignored a statutory requirement for signature verification of ballots without approval by the state legislature.

• In Georgia, election officials altered a tabulation procedure so that statutory requirements for signature verification of absentee ballots were not followed.

• In Michigan, the secretary of state violated statutory requirements that local election officials be the ones to distribute absentee ballots.

• In Wisconsin, the Elections Commission violated a statutory prohibition against drop boxes, placing hundreds of them around the state.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that state legislatures are responsible for establishing the manner by which presidential electors are selected. In these four states, it was secretaries of state or election boards, not legislatures, that approved these critical components of the state’s election system. While media outlets like the Herald-Republic may label these concerns “unfounded,” it is clear why this – rightfully – spurred constitutional concerns.

In fact, as I write this, the U.S. Senate is conducting a hearing to discuss election security and “irregularities” within the 2020 election.

Unfortunately, far too many news articles have conflated my concerns over the election protocols raised in the brief with other claims of widespread fraud – something the brief did not raise. To make such insinuations is irresponsible at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

I have explained in several statements that my intention behind joining this amicus brief was to defend our Constitution and instill confidence in our election system. I maintain, despite the numerous media reports to the contrary, that this brief – and this case – was not about overturning election results. The consequences of a lack of confidence in our election system are not just for this election, but for future national elections as well. If now is not the time to stand up for our Constitution, when is?

I was born and raised in Central Washington, and I am proud to have represented the 4th District for the past six years. Those who have met me and followed my work should know that I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I take my responsibilities in Congress lightly. I did not sign onto this amicus brief with the intention of overturning the results of the 2020 election, but to defend the law and uphold the values of our Constitution, as I swore an oath to do.

My concerns regarding upholding the Constitution are not “unfounded” or “unspecific.” Take the time to read the amicus brief I signed onto, and you can see for yourself the specific issues raised and the serious implications posed by these unconstitutional election processes.

If the American people can’t have confidence that our elections are safe, fair and constitutional, we will not keep our republic. I will continue to work in Congress to instill this confidence, produce integrity, and promote transparency in our election system.

U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Sunnyside, represents the 4th Congressional District.