Election panel awaits judge’s ruling on Mich. recount

The Detroit News | December 7, 2016 | Chad Livengood

[damper99]

It may have no legal effect now, but a meathead like Goldsmith could declare otherwise...or, declare the election results invalid due to the mismatch of voters and ballots in Detroit. Activist judges like Goldsmith don’t follow the law except when it suits them. They’re gods in their own minds.

[Cboldt]

She's making a literalist argument. I haven't studied the case law in MI on this point, such as who has filed for recounts, the basis and so forth. Her argument is the same one adopted by Judge Conehead - MI law says a recount is a matter of right by asking for it and paying the statutory fee. Any voter or candidate is entitled to a recount.

I downloaded the MI election statutes. Pretty dense stuff, and LOTS of it! From the use of "aggrieved" elsewhere in the election law, I think her argument that "aggrieved" is nothing more than a state of mind -- detached from election results and possible results of a recount -- is garbage.

The MI appellate court opinion is a pretty good way to get a handle on how the MI courts see "aggrieved." I've read a few of her briefs. The one opposed to MiSC hearing the case is a hoot, especially in light of her today petitioning the MiSC to hear the case. Her lawyers have the same sesne of honesty and consistency that journalists have - none.

[Democrat_media]

Nobody even heard of this Jill Stein before. She got at most 1% of the vote. And then she put up a website to fund recounts in 3 states and raised 7 million dollars in a few days (less than a week). Many websites like reddit proved that a bot was transferring $160,000 per hour even at 3 am to her recount . So who could have such unlimited funds and is willing to spend it to do a coup? Soros as Soros did a coup in Ukraine already.

This is an illegal coup attempt by Soros. Stein had no chance and no one even heard of her and she couldn't have raised 7 million in a few days never so this is all funded by the only individual who has unlimited billions and has done it many times to try to affect politics, Soros. Soros also paid for the protests after the election etc.

This is a coup attempt not any recount whatever , it's a coup attempt . Only the 3 states that Trump won narrowly are being recounted to try to flip the election to Hillary if all 3 change it will. .This is a scheme by soros .

[DarthVader]

That is the least of his problems

[Cboldt]

-- Do you know what happens if we cannot complete the recount in time as Goldsmith ordered us to? The whole state is charged with contempt? Or justvthrvrlection folk? --

The only way contempt will stand is if the recount "management" orders the effort to stop. The judge can no more order a completion date than he can order a repeal of a physical law. It gets done, when it gets done. Contempt will not stand against a person who has better things to do than work a recount. If you are ordered to recount (as an election-related employee of a city, county or state) you do what the boss says, or take the consequences. But nobody outside of that group of workers has to take the temp job.

I would not "scramble" for help or to get the recount done in a hurry. The state courts have ruled "no recount." Judge Conehead is showing the world his ass. He deserves ridicule and contempt.

[T Ruth]

“End the darn recount before they figure out our vote-fraud was generating more reported votes than there were live voters casting ballots!”

REVEALED: Michigan Recount Uncovers Serious Voter Fraud in Detroit- VOTES COUNTED UP TO 6 TIMES

[FredZarguna]

I realize they are making a literalist argument. But it seemed to me that the fact that the statute contains the word “aggrieved” — at all — indicates that there actually is a requirement for standing beyond the mere act of requesting a recount. I thought this was a term of art substantially the same as “injured,” with specific meaning attached based on the statute or obvious context. Her lawyer is arguing it means something like “upset,” or “unhappy.”

[bobsunshine]

LANSING, Mich., Dec. 7, 2016 – Michigan Republican Party Chairman Ronna Romney McDaniel applauded the Michigan Board of Canvassers who voted to direct Michigan Director of Elections Chris Thomas to end the recount if Judge Goldsmith lifts his temporary restraining order continuing the Michigan recount. Yesterday, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel ordered the Board of Canvassers by writ of mandamus to reject Jill Stein’s recount petition.

“Enough is enough. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled. The Michigan Board of Canvassers voted. It’s time to end this wasteful 1% taxpayer-funded recount,” stated MRP Chairman Ronna Romney McDaniel.

This morning, arguments were heard by Judge Goldsmith in Michigan’s Eastern District. Yesterday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals made clear, in their ruling, that “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.”

[djpg]

The longer this judge stalls, the more the recount progresses and the longer it will take for him to be overruled by the higher court. He wants the recount to be a fait accompli. He probably wishes he could just deliver the state and the whole election to Clinton.

[jstolzen]

What do you guys think the odds are that we’ll see a ruling from this “judge” before the recount ends naturally?

I give it high odds he’s going to stall until the entire state recounts and they find (or manufacture) enough votes to flip it to Herself.

[roostercogburn]

What type of twisted up legal opinion is this SOB Goldsmith writing up??
He must be trying to figure out a way to continue the recount regardless of the Court of Appeals ruling yesterday.
If he does issue something that continues the recount until the Michigan SC rules on the issue, I hope they order an immediate halt tonight of the counting.
I knew this clown was an Obama hack... but I’m shocked he’s taking so long.

[damper99]

If that doesn’t work, Stein’s next approach will be an attempt to get these three state’s results thrown out, as well as Florida’s. I don’t know if she is past the cut off date in Florida to get recounting started there.

[wejustorderedbisque]

Just because it has no legal force doesn’t mean it doesn’t have political force. If they magically “find” another 12000 votes in a car trunk somewhere, they will succeed in delegitimizing Trump’s win to a great degree. Sure, Trump will still be president, but they will have done great damage to his mandate, which has been their goal all along.

[Hebrews 11:6]

A rational observer might presume that the issue of whether Stein et al will appeal to MiSC should have been a key component of this morning's hearing, but without access to a link or transcript we don't know its prominence. That same observer might presume that this judge's written opinion would hinge on that--e.g., given the lower court's adverse ruling, the recount is voided unless such appeal is made within XX hours.

[RightInTheMain]

You may well be right, because the roads are slowing starting to get blocked on her legal team. She looks to be a point where Wisconsin is prob going to finish and certify. PA looks to be a dead duck, they have a few shots left there. PA is actually pushing back (probably because better to just let Trump win than half of Philly’s election board go to jail), and MI looks to likely hold in check because of the 6th Appellate ruling. I don’t see her winning her case in MI unless she delays long enough to get it to the USSC and the recount details somehow look favorable for Hillary.

[Cboldt]

-- I thought this ["aggrieved"] was a term of art substantially the same as "injured," with specific meaning attached based on the statute or obvious context. Her lawyer is arguing it means something like "upset," or "unhappy." --

Just so. And from the context of usage elsewhere in election statutes, the notion of actual loss is clear.

What I don't know is whether Stein's assertion is true, that other races have been recounted just for giggles, and such has been held to be the standard for "aggrieved" by election boards and courts. I don't believe she cites any specific cases to support the assertion.

Sec. 521. Whenever any township, city or village clerk shall determine that any name has been illegally or fraudulently entered upon the registration records ... Provided, however, That any person aggrieved by such action of any such clerk may review such action and seek the reinstatement of his name by mandamus ...

Sec. 552. (6) Upon the completion of the investigation or examination, the county clerk shall immediately make an official declaration of the sufficiency or insufficiency of nominating petitions ... A person feeling aggrieved by a determination made by the county clerk may have the determination reviewed by the secretary of state by filing a written request with the secretary of state within 3 days after the official declaration of the county clerk

On that section 552, if taken literally, the only right a person who has been denied a place on the ballot has, is a review, not a change. In other words, the state can be read as saying the county clerk's decision is conclusive, even over an order of a court.

Back to "aggrieved," The use of this term of art allows shenanigans. Elsewhere in the statutes, there is a clear indication of the contest outcome being turnable.

Sec. 867. (2) If 1 candidate is to be elected to the office and the official canvass of votes shows that the number of votes separating the winning candidate and the petitioner is more than 50 votes or 0.5% of the total number of votes cast in the race, whichever is greater, the petitioner shall deposit with the clerk the sum of $125.00 for each precinct referred to in his or her petition. For purposes of this subsection, the winning candidate in a primary for a nonpartisan office where only 1 candidate will be elected means the candidate nominated with the lesser number of votes.

[this reads like nonsense to me - I can't explain it, except to notice that "candidate nominated with the lesser number of votes" might be a long winded way to say "other name on the ballot"] ...

(5) If, by reason of the recount, the petitioner establishes sufficient fraud or mistake as set forth in his or her recount petition to change the result of the election and receives a certificate of election or establishes sufficient fraud or mistake to change the result upon an amendment or proposition, the votes for and against which were recounted, the clerk of the board of county canvassers shall refund the money deposited to the petitioner.

This section appears to show that the point of a recount is to change the result of the election, unless the legislature intended recount to be available simply on payment of a fee. If recount was available to anybody who has a bad hair day (feels aggrieved), the statute could be a heck of a lot simpler. There would be no point in a refund provision. Seems to me the refund exists as a matter of making the state accountable for calling the correct winner the first time around.

[wejustorderedbisque]

Wow. That is indeed such garbage. If the Stein camp had the correct interpretation of “aggrieved,” the MI legislature might as well not have written that term in, because what purpose does it serve? No one would file for recount unless they had an aggrieved” mental state. And the MI legislature most certainly did not contemplate that their law would be used by any nobody with 1% of the vote to demand a statewide recount at a $5M cost to taxpayers.

[mrsmith]

6 PM and he still hasn’t called off the recount...
Guess he’s waiting until after the network newscasts.

If he hasn’t called it off by 7 I think a ‘welfare check’ by the police would be prudent.

[FredZarguna]

It is already voided. It can be resurrected from the dead only by the MI Supreme Court.

As for the filing w/ the MI Supreme, Cbolt has kindly pointed out to me that it was done at 10:51 AM this morning. The link Cbolt provided is down thread from the post I made to you.

[xzins]

It is why judges shpuld not have life tenure.