Bucks County, Pennsylvania Commissioners may have engaged in a Criminal Conspiracy, by openly defying both statute law and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by moving to count provisional election ballots missing a signature.
Bucks County Board of Commissioners Chair Robert J. Harvie Jr. (D) and Vice Chair Diane Ellis-Marseglia (D) decided to count provisional ballots that were missing a signature in one of two places, which officials call “block two” and “block four.” The third commissioner, Gene DiGirolamo (R), was the lone dissenting voice to oppose the Democrats’ challenge to count the ballots.
🚨🚨🚨#BucksCounty Democrat Commissioners violate the rule of law and ignore PA Supreme Court ruling!
— Bucks GOP (@BucksGOP) November 14, 2024
Democrat Commissioners Diane Marseglia and Bob Harvie voted today to count illegal ballots, against PA Supreme Court ruling, in an attempt to aid former Senator Bob Casey.… pic.twitter.com/qAdFlVchmh
Harvie Jr. and Ellis-Marseglia’s decision to count the ballots comes despite a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling from just months ago which determined that provisional ballots missing a signature should not be counted.
In that case–which featured challenges from Republican primary candidates for the 117th District in the Pennsylvania State House, Jaime Walsh and Mike Cabell–the court ruled that voters must sign a provisional ballot envelope for it to count.
According to Section 3050(a.4) of the election code, highlighted in the court’s decision, those voting via provisional ballot must also submit a signed affidavit.
After Deputy County Solicitor Daniel Grieser advised them that “unless it’s signed by the voter in two places… we shouldn’t count these,” Ellis-Marseglia and Harvie Jr decided to count the votes missing one signature anyway.
As the county has some ballots missing two signatures and others missing signatures in either “block two” or “block four,” DiGirolamo, moments before the motion to count the votes passed, moved to reject all three types of ballots missing signatures through a single motion, grouping them all together.
That motion failed with his colleagues, but before it did, Ellis-Marseglia shockingly said she did not value court precedent and touted her indifference regarding whether or not she was breaking the law in her official capacity by ignoring the recent state Supreme Court ruling.
“I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country, and people violate laws anytime they want,” she said. “So for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention to it.”
“And there is nothing more important than counting votes, and I’ll take it all the way,” she added.
Ellis-Marseglia went on to imply that she refused to listen to the county solicitors’ advice because she wanted to make this a court issue again.
“With all due respect, our law department’s goal is to stay out of any kind of court because they’re supposed to do that, but we might, some of us might want them to go to court,” she laughed.
Grieser said he believed “the law department’s advice has been consistent, at least since I’ve been here, to follow the current state of the law.”
The three types of ballots in question were ultimately voted on individually. This led to Harvie Jr. and Ellis-Marseglia accepting Democrats’ challenges on ballots where one signature was missing but rejecting challenges where both signatures were absent.
Walter Zimolong, the counsel for Republicans and McCormick, zoned in on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Walsh case while arguing before the board ahead of the motion.
“What the Supreme Court said was there is a clear mandate in Section 3050 (a)(4)of the election code that says the voter has to sign in both places, and it very clearly says, what happens, that ballot shall not count,” Zimolong said.
The Bucks County Republican Party announced Thursday afternoon that its attorneys are working with counterparts from the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Pennsylvania Republican Party (PAGOP) “to address this matter.”
The Bucks County Courier Times reported Thursday that McCormick is suing the county’s Board of Elections for allegedly accepting “more than 400 mail-in ballots that were misdated or undated.” It is unclear if this lawsuit encompasses the board’s defiance of the Supreme Court ruling from months ago regarding rejecting ballots missing a signature.
The Board’s decision comes as Democrat US Senator Bob Casey and other Democrats are challenging the Senate race results, despite the Associated Press calling the race for Dave McCormick last Wednesday. The New York Times’s latest results as of Thursday night showed McCormick, who has already staked out his office in the U.S. Capitol, leading by 24,154 votes. The race is headed for a recount.
OPINION: CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY?
The remarks made by Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia indicate a brazen disregard not only of statute law, but - as her remarks acknowledged - Pennsylvania Supreme Court case law.
The attorney for the Commissioners even advised them against doing what they've done, but Diane Ellis-Marseglia and Harvie Jr. went ahead and did it anyway - KNOWING it was illegal.
While Election law is one aspect of this situation, CRIMINAL LAW seems to also be applicable to what these Commissioners have done and are doing.
In Pennsylvania, if two or more people agree together to do something illegal, THAT is a "Criminal Conspiracy."
The actual text of the Statute makes things crystal clear:
§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.
(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.
(b) Scope of conspiratorial relationship.--If a person guilty of conspiracy, as defined by subsection (a) of this section, knows that a person with whom he conspires to commit a crime has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same crime, he is guilty of conspiring with such other person or persons, to commit such crime whether or not he knows their identity.
(c) Conspiracy with multiple criminal objectives.--If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship.
(d) Joinder and venue in conspiracy prosecutions.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, two or more persons charged with criminal conspiracy may be prosecuted jointly if:
(i) they are charged with conspiring with one another; or
(ii) the conspiracies alleged, whether they have the same or different parties, are so related that they constitute different aspects of a scheme of organized criminal conduct.
(2) In any joint prosecution under paragraph (1) of this subsection:
(i) no defendant shall be charged with a conspiracy in any county other than one in which he entered into such conspiracy or in which an overt act pursuant to such conspiracy was done by him or by a person with whom he conspired;
(ii) neither the liability of any defendant nor the admissibility against him of evidence of acts or declarations of another shall be enlarged by such joinder; and
(iii) the court shall order a severance or take a special verdict as to any defendant who so requests, if it deems it necessary or appropriate to promote the fair determination of his guilt or innocence, and shall take any other proper measures to protect the fairness of the trial.
(e) Overt act.--No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired.
We know from Section 3050(a.4) of the election code, highlighted in the court’s decision, those voting via provisional ballot must also submit a signed affidavit.
After Deputy County Solicitor Daniel Grieser advised them that “unless it’s signed by the voter in two places… we shouldn’t count these,” Ellis-Marseglia and Harvie Jr decided to count the votes missing one signature anyway.
So not only did Robert J. Harvie Jr. and Diane Ellis-Marseglia AGREE to do something illegal, they took action to carry out that illegal action, (i.e. voting to do it) and the illegal action is presently being done!
This seems to many non-attorney Laymen, to be the book definition of a "Criminal Conspiracy."
It ought to be interesting to see if Law Enforcement will apply the law when it's Democrats committing the act.
Surely, if anyone ELSE Conspired to violate a state law, and defy a Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent, those persons WOULD be prosecuted. But nowadays, Democrats seem to all stick together in their criminality. It's sort of like Comedian George Carlin once said "It's one big club - and we ain't in it."
Ellis-Marseglia said "If I violate this law, it's because I WANT a court to pay attention to it." She should get exactly, precisely what she asked for . . . . only not an Election Court - a CRIMINAL COURT.
These people not only broke the law, they were advised by an Attorney they were not to do what they were talking about and did it anyway. Many people think that shows criminal intent.
If it is OK for Democrats to Conspire to commit an illegal act, one wonders if it's OK for everyone else to do so as well?
The County Prosecutor in Bucks County needs to step-up and CHARGE these people. If he will not, then the State Attorney General should step-in and CHARGE these people.
If they will not, we need only await the inauguration of President Trump, who can order the US Attorney to CHARGE them under federal Conspiracy statutes.
