Key Takeaways:
– A Democratic election board official in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, decided to ignore a state Supreme Court ruling.
– The ruling that was disregarded refers to counting undated or misdated ballots as invalid.
– The decision insinuates a potential obstacle in Pennsylvania’s ongoing automatic U.S. Senate seat recount.
Ignoring Court Rulings While Counting Votes
One may think that the basic rule of law is always honored, particularly when it comes to tallying votes. But surprisingly, there was a case in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, where this wasn’t the case. On a recent day, a Democratic election board official took a bold stand against an established legal directive. She decided to go against a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling, a significant law-related act that didn’t go unnoticed. The rule she decided to overlook? It related to undated or even wrongly dated ballots.
What Did The Bucks County Chairman and Commissioner Do?
In a moment of defiance, the chairman of Bucks County, Robert Harviie Jr., along with commissioner Diane Marseglia, went against a fellow council member. They moved to count these undated or misdated ballots. Why is this a big deal, you ask? Well, there’s a Supreme Court ruling in Pennsylvania that sees these ballots as invalid.
Why Is This Decision Significant Now?
Right now, Pennsylvania is experiencing an auto recount of votes for the U.S. Senate seat. At the center of this are Bob Casey, the current holder of the seat, and his opponent, Dave McCormick. The Associated Press has already declared the Republican businessman, Dave McCormick, as the winner. But official television networks like CNN haven’t made their call yet. This kind of disagreement only adds fuel to the fire.
Every Vote Matters, So What Happens Next?
In a conversation on this topic, CNN’s Marshall Cohen chimed in with his perspective. According to him, we are discussing a difference of just about 100 votes. Hence, despite the controversy, this isn’t likely to tip the balance of the race. However, in a situation where there’s a recount, every vote acquires greater significance.
Does She Justify Defying The Supreme Court?
Marseglia argued that she would not follow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. You might be wondering why. Her argument was that in today’s USA, legal precedence doesn’t seem to matter anymore. She felt people tend to break laws according to their convenience. With her act of defiance, she aimed to compel the court to reevaluate the matter.
Not Everyone Agrees With This Method
The host of the show, Jake Tapper, summarized what Marseglia said, and he wasn’t impressed. He equated her attitude to that of Donald Trump’s lawless actions. He called her actions ‘sleazy,’ a term heavily loaded with negative implications. His co-worker, Cohen, agreed with this sentiment.
What This Means For The Future
Marseglia’s defiant act is not just an isolated incident. It invites a chain of events, most notably, the likely legal challenges that will follow suit. It remains to be seen how valid these claims of breaking the law will be in the eyes of the court. For now, we watch as the dust begins to settle on this new controversy.
By covering this, we aim to shed light on the intricate dynamics of our state’s election board workings. Stay tuned for more updates on the ongoing recount for the U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania.