...Members of Congress have the right -- the obligation, I'd say -- to challenge the count of electoral votes when they/their constituents believe there was a problem with the election. This check against the confirmation of a potentially invalid election is specifically in the constitution for a reason -- to help protect the validity and reliability of the Presidential election. It's a check on malfeasance at the state level, where, for example, one state (or several states), in conducting illegal/unconstitutional elections of their own, could effectively disenfranchise other states. One remedy for that hypothetical is the U.S. Congress contesting state results.

Such contests have taken place on several occasions throughout the country's history, including in 2000, 2004 and 2016 when Congressional Dems contested Republican victories, which unfortunately normalized an activity that should only be used sparingly, IMO. (The Dems have now done the same to the impeachment process.) No one even thought about calling those contests insurrection, as exercising one's constitutional right is definitionally not insurrection even if such objections are perceived as absurd, false, divisive, etc.

If Hawley's/Cruz's contests are unconstitutional and insurrectionist, then so were all previous contests. If they were not unconstitutional/insurrectionist, then there is no 14A case.

The irony here is the left calling to overturn the will of the MO & TX voters based solely on the accusation that their senators tried to overturn the will of other voters. It's ridiculous on its face.