cThe editorial board of the Washington Post published a critical piece about Pennsylvania Democrats Saturday, denouncing politicians who voted in favor of counting invalid ballots during a U.S. Senate race recount.The piece came as Keystone State Democrats seek to salvage invalid provisional ballots in favor of Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, who lost to Republican Senator-elect Dave McCormick in the Nov. 5 election.Casey lost by a margin of around 24,000 votes and has not yet conceded the race. Because the margin between the two candidates was less than half a point, an automatic recount was triggered by Pennsylvania law.State rules dictate that provisional ballots must be signed in two places and that mail-in votes must include correct dates. Democrats in some counties have voted in favor of counting ballots that were deemed invalid, which contradicts a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.TRUMP LAWYER WILLIAM OWEN SCHARF PICKED FOR ‘CRUCIAL’ WHITE HOUSE ASSISTANT ROLE”I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country,” Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, a Democrat, said Thursday.”People violate laws anytime they want,” she added. “So, for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention. There’s nothing more important than counting votes.”In a piece titled “Democrats thumb their nose at the rule of law in Pennsylvania,” the WaPo editorial board wrote that election rules “must be applied equally and consistently.”HERE ARE THE MOST TALKED-ABOUT CANDIDATES FOR TOP POSTS IN TRUMP’S ADMINISTRATION”Democrats would surely protest if a Republican commissioner made the same statement [as Ellis-Marseglia] to justify tipping the scales for their party’s Senate nominee — and they would be right,” the board said. “Elections need rules, established in advance of the voting, and those rules must be applied equally and consistently.”The op-ed also predicted that the votes “will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, but the mere attempt to defy judicial rulings is corrosive to democracy and invites similar behavior in future elections.””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.”The op-ed also flatly states that Casey “almost certainly lost the race,” and called for Democrats to accept the loss gracefully, “especially if they want to continue claiming theirs is the party of democracy.””State law also entitles Mr. Casey to a statewide recount because Mr. McCormick’s margin of victory is smaller than half a percentage point, though not by much,” the op-ed said.  “A recount is unlikely to change the outcome.”Fox News Digital reached out to the Casey campaign for comment.Fox News Digital’s Sophia Compton and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.