WaPo Calls Out Pennsylvania Democrats For Brazen Defiance Of PA Supreme Court Ruling

The editorial board of The Washington Post has sharply criticized Pennsylvania Democrats for continuing to count invalid ballots in the the closely contested U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Sen. Bob Casey Jr. and Republican Senator-elect Dave McCormick. The editorial, published Saturday, condemned the actions of several Democratic politicians who have voted to include provisional and mail-in ballots that were ruled invalid, arguing that such actions undermine the rule of law and threaten the integrity of the electoral process.

The Washington Post also highlighted the role of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this ongoing legal battle. The court had already ruled that ballots that did not meet the state’s strict requirements should not be counted. The editorial pointed out that the court, while holding a partisan majority of Democratic-elected justices, had acted within its authority and in accordance with state law.

Even if the court’s composition were reversed, the editorial argued, its authority would remain legitimate. “Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, by the way, includes five justices elected in partisan elections as Democrats and just two elected as Republicans,” the editorial board noted. “Even if that partisan balance were reversed, however, the court’s authority would be equally legitimate.”

Casey, a longtime Democratic incumbent, lost to McCormick by a narrow margin of around 24,000 votes. With the margin between the two candidates being less than half a percentage point, an automatic recount was triggered under Pennsylvania state law.

However, as the recount process progressed, issues arose regarding the validity of certain ballots. Pennsylvania law mandates that provisional ballots be signed in two places, and mail-in ballots must include the correct date to be considered valid. In some counties, however, local Democratic officials have voted to include ballots that did not meet these criteria, prompting concerns about election integrity and adherence to the law.

The controversy deepened when The Washington Post reported that some Pennsylvania Democrats, including Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, openly expressed their intention to violate established election laws in favor of counting these invalid ballots. “People violate laws anytime they want,” Ellis-Marseglia said, justifying her position by claiming that she wanted the court to “pay attention” and insisting that “nothing is more important than counting votes.”

The Washington Post’s editorial board called the actions “an affront to the rule of law” and stressed that election laws must be applied fairly and consistently, regardless of the political party in power. The editorial also noted the importance of adhering to established rules to ensure public confidence in the electoral process.

In its op-ed, The Washington Post strongly argued that Democrats would rightfully protest if Republican officials had made similar claims to justify bending or breaking the law in favor of their own candidate. “Democrats would surely protest if a Republican commissioner made the same statement to justify tipping the scales for their party’s Senate nominee — and they would be right,” the editorial board wrote. “Elections need rules, established in advance of the voting, and those rules must be applied equally and consistently.”

The editorial board also expressed concern that efforts to count invalid ballots would ultimately be overturned by the courts, further undermining the public’s trust in the electoral process. “The votes will almost certainly be overturned on appeal,” the piece predicted, “but the mere attempt to defy judicial rulings is corrosive to democracy and invites similar behavior in future elections.”

While the recount may not ultimately change the outcome, the controversy surrounding the handling of invalid ballots may have lasting implications for the state’s political climate, especially in terms of how election laws are enforced and respected in races to come.

In the end, the Washington Post’s critique underscores a central tenet of democratic governance: the rule of law must apply to everyone, regardless of political affiliation or the outcome of the race. Whether or not Democrats succeed in overturning the invalid ballot rulings, the calls for transparency, consistency, and respect for judicial rulings will likely continue to reverberate in Pennsylvania and across the country as the 2024 election cycle moves forward.