c
The Washington Post's editorial board published a critical article about the Pennsylvania Democratic Party on Saturday, criticizing politicians who voted in favor of counting invalid votes during the recount of the U.S. Senate race.
This article was published as Keystone State Democrats seek to recover invalid provisional ballots in favor of Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, who lost to Republican Sen.-elect Dave McCormick in the Nov. 5 election. It was done.
Casey lost by about 24,000 votes, but has not yet conceded the race. Because the difference between the two candidates was less than half a point, Pennsylvania law triggered an automatic recount.
State rules say provisional ballots must be signed in two places and mail-in ballots must include the correct date. Democratic lawmakers in some counties have voted to count invalidated votes, contradicting a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.
Trump lawyer William Owen Scharf named 'key' White House aide
A Washington Post editorial focused on the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's efforts to count invalid mail and provisional ballots. (Getty Images)
“I think we all know that court precedent no longer matters in this country,” Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis Marseglia (D) said Thursday.
“People break the law whenever they want,” she added. “So for me, if I'm going to violate this law, it's because I want the court to take notice. There's nothing more important than counting the votes.”
In an article titled “Democrats slam Pennsylvania's rule of law,” the WaPo Editorial Board wrote that election rules “must be applied equally and consistently.”
Here are the most talked about candidates for key positions in the Trump administration
“If a Republican committee member made the same statement, Democrats would definitely protest.” [as Ellis-Marseglia] “To justify voting for their party's Senate candidate, and they would be right,” the board said, “elections require rules established before voting, and those rules are It must be applied equally and consistently.”
The editorial also predicted that the vote “will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, but simply attempting to defy a judicial decision corrodes democracy and invites similar behavior in future elections.”
People voting on Election Day in Pittsburgh, Nov. 5. (Reuters/Quinn Grabicki)
“By the way, there are five justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court who were elected as Democrats in partisan elections, but only two justices were elected as Republicans,” the editorial board noted. “But even if the partisan balance were reversed, the court's authority would be just as legitimate.”
The editorial also flatly stated that Mr. Casey “almost certainly lost the race” and urged Democrats to graciously accept defeat “especially if they want to continue to claim that their party is the party of democracy.” I asked.
“Because Mr. McCormick's margin of victory is less than half a percentage point, but not by much, state law also gives Mr. Casey the right to conduct a statewide recount,” the editorial said. “A recount is unlikely to change the outcome.”
Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania sits on stage and listens to former President Barack Obama at a rally in Pittsburgh on October 10. (FOX News/Paul Steinhauser)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
FOX News Digital has reached out to Casey's camp for comment.
Fox News Digital's Sophia Compton and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.
