The Pennsylvania Senate race between David McCormick and Bob Casey has turned into a masterclass in Democratic election theatrics. Despite both the Associated Press and DecisionDeskHQ calling the race for McCormick, Casey stubbornly refuses to concede, clinging to the hope that a recount might miraculously reverse his 20,000-vote deficit. Leading this increasingly desperate charge is Marc Elias, the Democrats’ go-to legal wizard, known for his talent in stretching the boundaries of electoral rules. While recounts rarely change outcomes, it’s curious how they seem to work in the Democrats’ favor when they do. Coincidence? Sure.
The math, however, is not on Casey’s side. McCormick’s lead is robust enough to withstand even the most creative recount efforts. Yet Casey and Elias are not deterred, digging deep into their bag of tricks. Bucks County has become ground zero for their latest gambit, where Democratic commissioners decided to override their own legal counsel and Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court to count 124 improperly signed ballots. The commissioners’ defiance is striking—one even admitted that breaking the law was a deliberate ploy to draw judicial attention. Apparently, adhering to election integrity is optional when there’s political capital to be gained.
This legal free-for-all isn’t confined to Bucks County. Philadelphia is also in the mix, with city commissioners choosing to count undated and incorrectly dated mail ballots in defiance of a recent state Supreme Court ruling. Republicans have filed petitions to block these questionable practices, but the blatant disregard for legal precedent is troubling. Just weeks ago, the court explicitly ruled against counting undated ballots, yet here we are. It’s hard to believe this isn’t part of a larger strategy to chip away at election integrity for partisan gain.
Republican officials are rightly frustrated by the Democrats’ antics. With McCormick already attending Senate orientation in Washington, D.C., these legal maneuvers appear to be little more than a cash grab for Democratic operatives. But the real fear isn’t the recount or the handful of questionable ballots—it’s the possibility of “newly discovered” ballots magically tipping the scales. History offers chilling examples, such as the 2005 Washington gubernatorial race and the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, where suspiciously timed vote discoveries overturned initial Republican victories.
As it stands, McCormick’s win appears secure, but the Democrats’ relentless tactics highlight the broader battle over election integrity. From flouting court rulings to pushing the boundaries of election law, the Casey camp’s efforts underscore just how far some are willing to go to rewrite the rules when the outcome doesn’t suit them. It’s a stark reminder of why vigilance and adherence to the law remain critical in safeguarding the democratic process.
