In the last four years, the left has gone bananas after some Republican officials voted in 2020 against certifying electoral votes from swing states with legally dubious election practices. Wikipedia dedicated an entire page to these Republicans, slandering them as the “Sedition Caucus.”

So what do you call a cohort of vulnerable Democrats in Congress that will not commit to certifying a potential Trump victory? The Federalist inquired with a slew of Democrats listed as some of the most electorally vulnerable by The New York Times whether they would “accept the results of the presidential election if Donald Trump wins?” and whether, if elected, they would “commit to certifying the results of the presidential election if Donald Trump wins?”

Nine vulnerable Democrats responded to The Federalist with some variation of “yes.” Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, who notably has been touting his support of Trump-era policies in recent campaign ads, told The Federalist that “Members of Congress have a duty to preserve the sanctity of our elections and protect the sacred right to vote. After the states certify their election results, I will vote in favor of certifying those results in Congress to pave the way for the next administration.”

Inquiries to Colorado Rep. Yadira Caraveo, New Mexico Rep. Gabe Vasquez, Washington Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Pennsylvania Rep. Susan Wild went unanswered.

Democrats have insisted for the last four years that all elected officials must promise to certify an election if they don’t want to be “threats to democracy.” In 2001, 2005, and 2017, House Democrats objected to presidential election certifications. After she lost in 2016, Hillary Clinton went on an endless world tour insisting the election she lost was “stolen” by “Russian influence.”

NBC News ran an article in January headlined “GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik won’t commit to certifying the 2024 election results.” CNN host Pamela Brown was nearly brought to tears after Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullen said he wants to ensure that each state’s election administration is conducted properly, with Brown questioning why Mullen would want to “look at” the results — regardless of who wins — before certifying them.

The Washington Post framed Speaker Mike Johnson’s September comment that he would accept the results if the election were “free, fair, and safe…” as part of a larger effort by the right to claim the election was “stolen” and to “undermine the results” if Trump loses this go-around.

All of these pieces had one goal: to smear Republicans as “threats” to “democracy” for questioning whether the election was administered fairly and in accordance with each state’s respective laws. Per the new bar set by the left, elected officials must commit to certifying election results, no matter the outcome and prior to the race’s conclusion.

But now that Vice President Kamala Harris isn’t favored to win the election, Democrats and their propaganda press allies are losing their appetite for “accountability” via certifying an election victory for Trump. It’s why corporate media didn’t go ape when a slew of Democrats recently told Axios they would only accept the election if it were “free and fair” before claiming Trump would play dirty.

House Oversight Committee ranking Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin told Axios he would “obviously accept” a Trump win if it were a “free, fair and honest election,” also claiming that Trump “is doing whatever he can to try to interfere with the process, whether we’re talking about manipulating electoral college counts in Nebraska or manipulating vote count in Georgia or imposing other kinds of impediments.”

Democrat senior chief deputy whip Rep. Jan Schakowsky told Axios she doesn’t trust Trump and that “we would have to, in any election … make sure that all the rules have been followed.”

But for years Democrats have tried to bully Republicans into not only ceding all questions about election administration but also into accepting the results of an election that hasn’t even taken place. Those who dare scrutinize election integrity are smeared as election “deniers” — a strategy to stifle legitimate concerns.

Democrats have even used the Justice Department to force Americans into lockstep on election integrity, with Attorney General Merrick Garland going so far to boast that his office prosecuted nearly 1,500 Americans for protesting the certification of the 2020 election. Garland warned lawfare would continue to be employed by anyone who dares question the administration of the upcoming election.

But keeping in line with his two-tiered system of justice, Garland is mum now that Democrats refuse to commit to preemptively certifying the results of an election.

As Harris’ chances of a definitive victory continue to wane, Democrats are setting the stage to challenge the results of the election — not because they care about free and fair election administration, but because they care about denying Republican electoral wins by any means necessary.

UPDATE:

Pennsylvania Rep. Susan Wild did not originally respond to a Thursday inquiry from The Federalist or to a follow-up sent on Friday. Following publication, spokeswoman Catherine Clancy sent an email saying, “Rep. Wild will certify the results of the election regardless of who wins.”

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2