Replies

Just curious for your take. What do you make of this:

That same day, Dr. Stein filed a response to the objections, asserting that MCL 168.879(1)(b) only required her to allege generally that she was aggrieved. She further asserted that the statue did not require her to meet any particular standard or offer proof to demonstrate her aggrieved status.

How is this a serious legal argument?

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.