Christopher Thomas, former MI Elections Director, say Canvassing Board has no legal ability...

[brooklynite]

...to refuse to certify the completed Election canvass.

[Lucinda]

1. ...

[Kaleva]

2. Some Non-experts say otherwise. Who are we to believe?

[Thekaspervote]

4. Oh dear...hummm such a dilemma

[onetexan]

14. LOL

[ResistantAmerican17]

7. But ..... but.....but my nephew's 3rd cousin's sister's boyfriend

posted on Facebook ....

He says they can....

[Laelth]

3. That's crap.

If someone’s signature is required to make something happen, then that person has the legal ability to prevent something from happening ... by refusing to sign.

Perhaps there’s no legal basis or justification for refusing to sign, but that is another question altogether.

-Laelth

[BainsBane]

5. that makes sense. nt

[Kaleva]

6. The court can order the person to sign thus the person doesn't have the legal ability...

to prevent something from happening. There will be a delay but there's nothing any board member can do to prevent the election from being certified.

[Laelth]

10. Sure. Court issues an Order.

Person still refuses to sign. Person is jailed for contempt until person signs. What if person still refuses to sign?

Governor appoints someone else to that person’s seat on the Board. That person signs (maybe). If so, problem solved.

But the premise of the OP is still crap. If a person’s signature is required to make something happen, then that person has the LEGAL ability to prevent said something from happening ... by refusing to sign.

-Laelth

[Kaleva]

13. The governor has the legal authority to replace board memebers.

Thus your argument fails. As board members can be ordered to sign by the court or outright replaced if they still do not sign, then they have no legal ability to prevent the election from being certified. Certification will take place regardless. There's nothing that a member of the board can do to prevent that.

[Laelth]

20. I said that, didn't I?

-Laelth

[pat_k]

8. State court writ of mandamus will instruct action.

As Nevilledog posts here, they don't have discretion on this.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14602105

Writ of Mandamus is the remedy

168.878 Construction of sections; action against board of state canvassers by mandamus.

Nothing in the following sections of this chapter contained shall be construed to repeal any action or remedy which may now exist by reference of any controversy to the courts, except that any proceeding intended to restrain, enjoin, modify, control or otherwise interfere with the action of the board of state canvassers, the board of county canvassers or any other representative of the board of state canvassers operating under the provisions of the following sections of this chapter, shall be instituted only against the board of state canvassers and by no other action than mandamus.

Given the laws mandating action (Nevilledog's OP), a petition for writ of mandamus would certainly be granted.

Mandamus
Overview
A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.

[Laelth]

11. No writ of mandamus has been issued yet.

If it were issued, the subject of the order could still refuse to comply. Then what? Subject is jailed for contempt. Perhaps the Governor appoints someone else to fill that seat on the Board. Perhaps that new person signs. If so, problem solved.

My point is that any law that requires someone to sign gives the signer LEGAL power—the power to say “no” by refusing to sign. In that sense, the OP is crap.

-Laelth

[Kaleva]

15. If you have the legal power to do something, how could you end up in jail for exercising that power?

[pat_k]

18. They haven't failed to act yet.

A petition for a writ of mandamus is guaranteed to be filed by the governor or other party with standing when it is clear an impasse has been reached.

[Ms. Toad]

9. It is pretty clear it is a ministerial function.

There are a few times (which Thomas, unfortunately, didn't explain) when at least additional steps are required. For example, if Biden and Trump were tied - there are statutory guidelines for breaking the tie.

Otherwise the law is pretty clear: They add up the certified county returns and report the total.

If they take a vote, the language is clear enough to support a mandamus action (force them to certify). For that kind of action - it has to be an action over which they have no discretion.

(That doesn't mean they have no discretion as to anything within their job duties - but this particular duty is non-discretionary: add and certify).

After reviewing the law last night, my only quesiton was whether "election results" (the time for the audit) inherently means after certification. Thomas was pretty clear on the timing issue today - I just couldn't nail down a definition from the hundreds of pages in the statute.

[Laelth]

12. Then why require signatures?

Sure. It’s ministerial. Signatures are STILL required, and so long as that is the case, a designated signatory can refuse to sign and can do so completely legally.

-Laelth

[Ms. Toad]

16. Pretty sure it doesn't actually require signatures.

It requires a vote - and the vote is dictated based on the sum of the county certified totals. (There's 279 pages to the election law - so I haven't memorized every detail. But I'm pretty sure signatures were not mentioned as to this particular task.)

But even if you are correct, if a signature is not discretionary a court can issue a writ of mandamus and you will be held in contempt of court if you refuse. So - no, you can't always legally refuse signature if that is something that is legally obligated as part of your state job.

[Laelth]

17. I understand Mandamus.

The subject of the mandamus order could still refuse to sign and, instead, remain in jail. Then what?

Governor appoints someone new to the Board, and, presumably, that person signs. If so, problem solved.

My point was was that the OP’s argument is crap. If a signature is required to make something happen, then a designated signatory can prevent said something from happening by refusing to sign, and that would be completely legal. In this case, it almost certainly would only amount to a delay in the inevitable, but it might happen all the same.

-Laelth

[Kaleva]

19. If you end up in jail, that must mean one didn't have the legal power to do whatever it was.

[Laelth]

21. No. If you end up in jail for Contempt, you defied the Court.

Different subject altogether.

Come on, people. Get real. Signatures MEAN SOMETHING. If you have the power to sign, you also have the power to NOT SIGN. The law depends upon this simple rule.

-Laelth

[pat_k]

22. I do not believe the recalcitrant Repubs. . .

. . .have any intent to spend a minute in jail.

It is ALL for show -- to prove support for the delusions of DT and his MAGA fanatics. When a writ is issued, they comply with the assertion "we did all we could."

I would be shocked if the pair of them choose non-compliance. Not saying it couldn't happen, but these are not courageous people who actually believe the bullshit.

[Ms. Toad]

26. The OP said:

"Canvassing Board has no legal ability to refuse to certify the completed Election canvass."

So, leaving the signature issue aside - the contention is that the board has no legal right to refuse to certify. That is the basis on which the writ of mandamus would be ordered - because it is not "completely legal" to refuse to certify.

A signature is required (MCL 168-845), but it is mandatory - not discretionary ("shall" rather than "may&quot .

You are correct that as a practical matter they could just refuse to do it - but not correct that it would be "completely legal" to do so. (If it was completely legal - there woudl be no basis for a writ of mandamus.) Thomas (quoted by the OP) was speaking to the legality - not the practicality - of what might happen.

[StarfishSaver]

23. You can say that about just about anything under the sun

As my uncle used to say, "In fact, I don't HAVE to do anything but be black and die. Everything else is a choice."

At some point, that argument gets ridiculous.

[Laelth]

24. Under the law, signatures matter.

We depend upon them. My point, here, is that a person with the power to sign also MUST have the power to not sign. Otherwise, signatures are meaningless.

-Laelth

[StarfishSaver]

25. I understand your point.

It's wrong.