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.
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.”
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.