Michigan appeals court rejects Jill Stein's recount as unlawful

[FBaggins]

Source: Detroit Free Press

LANSING — The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Board of State Canvassers never should have allowed a recount requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein to proceed, because she has no chance to overturn the result of the presidential election in her favor and is not an aggrieved candidate.

The panel ordered the board to "reject the Nov. 30, 2016 petition of candidate Stein that precipitated the current recount process." The ruling came out almost simultaneously with a 2-1 order from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith's Monday order that the recount must get under way at noon that day, which it did.

The combined effect of the two rulings appears to set up further court proceedings in front of Goldsmith and the Michigan Republican Party has already filed for another federal hearing.

“The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, determining that the petition for recount filed by Dr. Jill Stein should have been denied,” said Ronna Romney McDaniel, chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party. “Dr. Stein is not an aggrieved candidate as she has no chance of winning the election in Michigan.”

Read more: http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/06/trump-schuette-michigan-recount-election/95048550/

---

Cue "dueling banjos"

[shenmue]

1. Yipes

[C Moon]

2. Followed by the sounds of slaps on the back and evil laughter.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. Since the Cir court ruled in favor of the recount, the Republicans need the supreme court to win,

right?

[FBaggins]

5. Not in the next step... but perhaps two steps later

The next step is probably the state Supreme Court... because while the Federal appellate court held that the noon start was appropriate, they also said:

"If, subsequently, the Michigan courts determine that plaintiffs’ recount is improper under Michigan state law for any reason, we expect the district court to entertain any properly filed motions to dissolve or modify its order in this case"

[Tiggeroshii]

7. Well then! Looks like this rests on the state supreme court! Since the US SC is likely to deadlock.

[FBaggins]

11. They're 5-2 republican IIRC

The USSC needs five to overturn, but only four to take the appeal. Having Trump win that way could be rhetorically useful

[Maraya1969]

29. Why doesn't Hillary just step in and request the recount?

[FBaggins]

34. It's long past the deadline

Not to mention that she long ago decided against it.

[yodermon]

4. Clinton campaign better file a amicus curiae brief STAT

[FBaggins]

6. She's an interested party (even if not a party to the lawsuit)

She probably can't.

[lagomorph777]

44. She doesn't actually seem all that interested

in democracy; same as Gore and Kerry.

[NobodyHere]

45. Why can't she?

Aren't amicus curiae briefs designed to let interested parties have their concerns be heard?

I could be wrong.

[Travis_0004]

10. I'm sure she will

But I'm not sure what effect that will have.

The court is right. Jill Stein has a 0% chance of winning Michigan.

I have no clue why Hillary didn't file for the recount. Either way the deadline is passed for her to file.

[Kotya]

14. Hillary's team quietly investigated the option.

And came to the conclusion that not only would the optics be horrible, but there's virtually no chance of finding the tens of thousands of votes in three states necessary to swing the election.

On both points, sadly, they're likely correct.

[JudyM]

21. Screw the damn optics! If there is a chance that these narrow state wins could be wrong, it is her

DUTY to Dem voters to do whatever she can to see it through.

[lonestarnot]

26. She is third party. She owes nothing to democrats.

[JudyM]

30. Referring to Hillary.

[lonestarnot]

31. Sorry. Yes I agree!

She apparently too devastated to act. Don't know the real story behind the inaction. Understood Mr. President told her not to make waves, but don't know how true that is. Did hear him say it.

[JudyM]

32. She needs to be a fighter right here right now. Can't be devastated or lay back when the planet is

quite seriously in jeopardy.

[pangaia]

33. Damn right.

[lonestarnot]

35. Human nature is that "they don't know what they got till it's gone." It's up to us. She not making

much of a move.

[JudyM]

36. Obama's a great person but too conciliatory for this scenario, if he's influencing her. Think Gore!

[lonestarnot]

38. Not sure we will ever know answer to that assumption.

[LuvLoogie]

39. She does not need to do this. She has fought enough.

The enemy has moved on. The front is now in Washington and it will be a war of public opinion, regardless of what happens legislatively. They have to be met with withering public criticism, ridicule and resistance.

The press is not on our side, and we would need them to help build momentum for recounts. We would need them to help gin up anger at the anomalies.

Hillary has fought enough.

[JudyM]

40. Um, no.If she's tough (enough) and principled as she says, she needs to stand up now. This matters.

[standingtall]

17. Where in the Michigan law

does it say a candidate must have a chance of winning in order to file for a recount?

[FBaggins]

18. I think it's that she can't be "aggrieved"

The language is "The petition alleges that the candidate is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the canvass of the votes by the inspectors of election or the returns made by the inspectors, or by a board of county canvassers or the board of state canvassers."

They're basically saying that Clinton might be "aggrieved", but she didn't request a recount.

[standingtall]

20. Just because a candidate

didn't have a chance to win does not mean they cannot be aggrieved by fraud or mistakes. They could actually care about election integrity and therefore be aggrieved by a faulty process.

[FBaggins]

22. I presume that's the argument

That we're all aggrieved when we can't be certain of our electoral outcomes

Apparently it wasn't legally persuasive... which isn't particularly surprising. The statute is clearly written to limit challenges to candidates who arguably lost because of error or fraud. She didn't.

[standingtall]

24. Was legally persuasive to several courts

these things come down to arbitrary decision makers. If the law was only meant for candidates who were aggrieved by losing elections in which they had a chance to win. Than it should say that it doesn't.

[FBaggins]

25. What courts are you referring to? n/t

[lonestarnot]

27. Everything is political, right down to the socks you wear or don't wear.

[Yo_Mama]

46. Well, under that theory, any voter should have standing to file for a recount!!!

But really it means actual harm or injury to the person filing - and the harm in a candidate's case would be that the result of the election (as reported) would be wrong.

[roamer65]

8. Federal takes precedent.

[Tiggeroshii]

9. Our friend, Frodo, in one of the above threads shared this from the Federal ruling:

"If, subsequently, the Michigan courts determine that plaintiffs’ recount is improper under Michigan state law for any reason, we expect the district court to entertain any properly filed motions to dissolve or modify its order in this case"

[FBaggins]

12. Not when ruling on state law

Only the Supreme Court could do that... and they are usually unwilling.

[TwilightZone]

19. Well, except for that one time....

[elmac]

13. so the Michigan Nazi court doesn't want to admit

that it is not about overturning anything, its about election integrity.

[FBaggins]

15. But is that a legal position?

The question is whether there is an "election integrity" statute beyond the recount rules.

A laudable purpose does not, in and of itself, grant power.

[Botany]

16. "they" know what the recount would show

America is slipping away.

[lonestarnot]

28. Yes it is.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. That's not the purpose of a recount.

[Qutzupalotl]

37. Republicans don't understand altruistic motivations. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. They don't understand that they don't OWN this country.

[McKim]

42. We. Need a Recount to Uncover any Election Tampering, Fraud, etc.

The point is not necessarily to overturn the election, but it would be great. The point is that there has been a lot of messing with this election and we need to get to the bottom of what happened.
Our elections must be fair.

[FBaggins]

43. I agree... but that doesn't give us a legal right to get one

The Wisconsin recount should be enough to demonstrate whether the election was legit. If the election was stolen, then WI had to be involved in the hack/scheme/whatever.

[Yo_Mama]

47. But that could be done after the certification, as could audits, etc.

Personally I think election audits are a great idea and should be conducted periodically for several randomly chosen voting districts in each state as a matter of course. But that shouldn't knock out a state's voters from the voting process.