I just read every word. I'm baffled as to how you can come to the conclusion that Pelosi is trying anything underhanded here. If you could point me to something specific in the article, or in Pelosi's actions, that support that, I'll listen. That said, unless I missed it, the dispute seems to be over 22 votes that were not counted for some unspecified reason, and the Republican winner isn't actually disputing the legitimacy of those votes.
What am I missing?
You're not missing anything in the article. There is nothing unusual or nefarious whatsoever in a challenge to a congressional election being made to the House. In addition to the article's inclusion of this statement,
Lofgren has defended the work of the committee and pointed out that election contests are not unusual, and used by both parties. In fact, Republicans are currently challenging the win in Illinois of Democratic Rep. Lauren Underwood, which the committee is also reviewing.
"Republicans know how this process works – over the past 90 years the Congress has adjudicated, in a bipartisan manner, more than a hundred contested elections cases filed by Republicans and Democrats alike in races nowhere near as close as Iowa’s Second," Lofgren said. "With that history in mind, it is profoundly disappointing some of my Republican colleagues are now painting this process as somehow nefarious."
the article also includes a link to the response to the Republican candidate's objection to the challenge in the House which states,
As then-Judge Antonin Scalia once observed,
It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment” of an issue to another branch of government to the exclusion of the courts than the language of Article I, section 5, clause 1 . . . . The provision states not merely that each House “may judge” these matters, but that each House “shall be
the Judge.” The exclusion of others—and in particular of others who are judges—could not be more evident.
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/Hart-v.-Miller-Meeks_March-10-Letter-Reply-Brief_COS_FINAL.pdf