Pennsylvania finds itself embroiled in a heated electoral dispute as Democrats push forward with counting mail-in ballots lacking proper dates, defying the state's Supreme Court ruling on the issue.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision, which mandates excluding these contested ballots, has not deterred Democrats from pursuing their count in a tight Senate race in which Republican Dave McCormick was already declared by many outlets to be the winner over incumbent Senator Bob Casey, as the Daily Wire reports.
With the race reaching its climax, McCormick currently holds a lead of over 26,000 votes. Out of the nearly 100% of ballots counted, McCormick has secured 3,385,115 votes or 48.90% compared to Casey's 3,359,086 votes amounting to 48.53%. Despite this lead, Pennsylvania's laws dictate that a recount occurs when the victory margin is less than half a percentage point.
The controversy escalated when Bucks County Democrats on the Office of Commissioners panel opted to count ballots missing or with incorrect dates. This decision directly contradicts the direction established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which emphasized the necessity of voter signatures in two specific areas on each mail-in ballot to validate their legitimacy.
Diane Marseglia, a Democrat and a pivotal figure in the commission’s choice, expressed her view on court precedents. "Not going to second that," Marseglia stated, while emphasizing her belief that "people violate laws any time they want." Her stance reflects a broader discontent with the current legal guidelines surrounding mail-in ballots.
This decision has sparked significant pushback. Bucks County Deputy Solicitor, Daniel Grieser, highlighted the state's legal stance, asserting that votes should not be counted unless they comply with the dual-signature requirement. He pointed out that the guidance consistently provided has been to adhere to prevailing laws.
The Republican camp, backing McCormick, has filed appeals against the Bucks County Board of Commissioners' controversial decision, arguing that it flagrantly contravenes binding Pennsylvania law. They have called the decision "baffling," stressing the importance of adhering to the date requirement for ballots.
Megan Gregory, a spokesperson for McCormick, voiced confidence in the outcome, labeling McCormick's lead as "insurmountable." However, she recognized that the recount is within Senator Casey's rights, describing it nonetheless as an unnecessary use of time and taxpayer money.
A recount, set to commence on Nov. 20, reflects the mandatory legal procedure once the margin dips below 0.5%. The results must be finalized by noon on Nov. 26, with official announcements expected by Nov. 27.
This is not the first instance of contention regarding ballot validity in Bucks County, as Democrats there have been known to count ballots with only one signature, despite it being deemed illegal. The current situation reignites debates about the integrity and validity of mail-in voting processes.
Diane Marseglia expressed a willingness to defy the law to prompt judicial attention, stating, "If I violate this law, it’s because I want the court to pay attention to it." Her remarks underscore a dissatisfaction with existing judicial practices and the risk she perceives in challenging the legal boundaries. The recount, while anticipated for compliance with procedural demands, is seen by many, including former election officials, as unlikely to alter the vote count by more than a few hundred votes. Their expectation is that the recount will affirm the current lead unless significant discrepancies are uncovered.
As the recount approaches, all eyes remain on Pennsylvania as both sides prepare for a potentially drawn-out legal and electoral battle. The ramifications of the recount could extend beyond immediate electoral outcomes, affecting public trust in electoral processes and state law enforcement.
While the recount is driven by legal stipulations, its broader impact raises questions about how decisions in such tightly contested situations are managed and the precedent they set for future electoral procedures. The outcome of the recount and its implications for both Democratic and Republican strategies will likely emerge as critical factors in shaping Pennsylvania's electoral landscape, as well as potential future legislative actions concerning mail-in voting requirements.
