MICHIGAN RECOUNT WATCH: Recount Halted (UPDATE)
Tonight a federal district court judge dissolved the TRO that had kept recount alive.
UPDATE (by WAJ):
At about 7:45 p.m. tonight the District Court dissolved the TRO that kept the recount going, effectively ending the Michigan Recount since the state court ordered a halt. Full Order at bottom of post:
…. Because there is no basis for this Court to ignore the Michigan court’s ruling and make an independent judgment regarding what the Michigan Legislature intended by the term “aggrieved,” Plaintiffs have not shown an entitlement to a recount under Michigan’s statutory scheme….
There is no case lawrecognizing an independent federal right to a recount that either this Court or the parties have
come across, in the absence of actual deprivation of voting rights. Rather, Plaintiffs’ asserted right to a recount is just a restatement of her right to participate in a fair election, free from tampering or mistake. But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery — but not actual injury. Because mere potentiality does not amount to a claim that the vote was not fairly conducted, Plaintiffs’ new claims are insufficient to maintain the existing TRO. No likelihood of success on that claim has been shown.The issues that Plaintiffs raise are serious indeed. The vulnerability of our system of voting poses the threat of a potentially devastating attack on the integrity of our election system. But invoking a court’s aid to remedy that problem in the manner Plaintiffs have chosen — seeking a recount as an audit of the election to test whether the vulnerability led to actual compromise of the voting system — has never been endorsed by any court, and would require, at a minimum, evidence of significant fraud or mistake — and not speculative fear of them. Such evidence has not been presented here.
For all these reasons, this Court dissolves the TRO effective immediately.
EARLIER
Tuesday, Michigan’s Court of Appeals halted the presidential vote recount instigated by failed Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein. The court determined Stein was not an “aggrieved candidate” and the results of the recount would not tip the scale in her favor.
At the same time, the 6th Circuit decided in a 2-1 vote that the recount could proceed. Their decision indicated the recount order could be dismissed if state courts found it incongruent with state law.
Wednesday morning, a federal judge heard arguments for the Michigan recount:
In Michigan, U.S District Judge Mark Goldsmith heard arguments on Wednesday for lifting the order made by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the recount should continue in the state.
Goldsmith plans to issue a written opinion, possibly later on Wednesday, according to local media reports. A court spokesman did not immediately reply to messages seeking details.
The 6th Circuit’s decision was issued shortly before an order by the Michigan Court of Appeals that the recount be halted on the grounds Stein was not an “aggrieved candidate” with standing to demand one.
Stein also requested recounts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
The Wisconsin recount is chugging along just fine, with minuscule changes in the original results.
Pennsylvania is not going so well for Stein. Wednesday, a Philadelphia court denied Stein’s request for a, “full forensic analysis of the city’s voting machines and their software.”
If Goldsmith says the recount should end, it looks as though the state is willing to accept that decision without issue:
ALERT: Board of Canvassers votes 3-1 on motion to instruct state elections director to end recount if federal judge lifts his order.
— Chad Livengood (@ChadLivengood) December 7, 2016
We’ll update with Goldsmith’s opinion when it’s available.
—————
Federal Court Order Halting Michigan Recount by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Did the federal judge take a powder? Last time I looked this morning, he had adjourned for 20 minutes. Can the state go up the federal ladder if he doesn’t rule tonight?
The Michigan Court of Appeals phrased its order in such a way as to make Judge Goldsmith’s ruling nugatory. Jurisdiction for controversies surrounding the selection of elector’s resides with the State except if the US Constitution is implicated.
The US constitution is always implicated in the selection of electors, because it is a federal function, not a state function, and therefore jurisdiction properly resides always with the federal courts, never with the state ones. But since the issue to be decided is the state legislature’s intentions, and state courts have more experience with their state legislature than federal courts do, federal courts tend to defer to the state courts’ specialized knowledge, unless they have evidence to the contrary.
I’m confused. Are they currently counting votes or not?
No the State Canvassers voted to halt the recount, pending Goldsmith’s ruling
Thank you.
If we were asking to ‘examine’ the votes cast in the 610 Detroit Precincts that could not reconcile the actual number of ballots to the tallied number sent in – the State would shut this down so fast your head would spin!
If this goes up to SCOTUS, does Ruth Bussey have to recuse herself? Given the fight she started with Trump?
Goldsmith is an obama appointee
I can’t wait to read the liberal websites and see how all the people going explody head because I state court overruled a federal court.
Can you identify where that occurred? These opinions look to me as if each court worked hard to stay within its jurisdiction and to make only those decisions required by the issues before it, so as to not overreach.
Unless I missed it, this looks like a series of judicial decisions that should give us confidence in our judicial system.
I didn’t say that’s what happened, I said that is what they will claim.
That is what you said.
Thanks.
That is a well-reasoned and written opinion. It makes sense for the district judge to have taken the time here to do it right in that this opinion likely will be referred to many times in the future.
Nice result, too.
It looks like Jill intends to appeal:
https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/806663149931950080
That could be one appeal too far, which could get her and her attorney sanctioned.
I think that is a different matter, examining Allegheny County’s voting machines.
Not the district court decision. Though she will probably appeal that too.
But from the last qappellate opinion she probably will fail.
The last paragraph of Judge Goldsmith’s Order says it all:
The issues that Plaintiffs raise are serious indeed. The vulnerability of our system of voting poses the threat of a potentially devastating attack on the integrity of our election system. But invoking a court’s aid to remedy that problem in the manner Plaintiffs have chosen — seeking a recount as an audit of the election to test whether the vulnerability led to actual compromise of the voting system — has never been endorsed by any court, and would require, at a minimum, evidence of significant fraud or mistake — and not speculative fear of them. Such evidence has not been presented here.
I think he was being too kind, though, to use the phrase “speculative fear.” Seems more like a case of speculation for the purpose of manipulation.
Not at all. If you look at Halderman’s article that started this all, the concern is very real. It’s just that as a matter of law it’s speculative. Halderman demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that it would be easy to manipulate these machines. They are wide open to interference. And if we never audit them then we will never know.
This is exactly the same as the conservative argument about voter fraud: if we never look for it how can we know whether it exists? And since it’s so easy to do, and so unlikely to be detected if nobody looks, it stands to reason that sooner or later someone is going to do it. We just got through campaigning for states to keep an audit trail, but what’s the point if nobody ever conducts an audit?
So regardless of how all this current argument pans out, we should be supporting Halderman’s call for every state’s ballots to be routinely hand-counted after each election.
About an hour ago received word from Michigan GOP that I was no longer needed as a recount monitor, tomorrow, Thursday 8 Dec.
MAGA.
Congradulations but still be prepared.
Thanks for having your boots on the ground there.
At this point, it appears that the original result in both MI (10) and WI(16) will stand. PA may be in question, but with only 20 electoral votes, turning that state blue will not change the ultimate outcome of the election: DJT would be left with 286, enough to carry the day.
So if PA remains “hot” until WI clears the recount, and MI ends with the most recent decision, Stein will have to pursue PA to the bitter end. Abandoning the PA challenge when there is no way for HRC to win only validates the speculation that she is but a shill for HRC.
I was under the impression that Hillary needs ALL 3 of these states to flip to win.
Trump getting just one (like he just did) of them ends the election in his favor.
With MI and NOT PA or WI he’d end up with over 270 votes…
Are they even recounting in PA? Last I heard they weren’t because stein missed the deadline.
Not that it matters since none of these recounts will actually change a thing.
OK, now it’s time to whack Stein for barratry, maintenance and being a vexatious litigant. Just to rub salt in the wounds, and to force her to spend even more on lawyers. Yeah, I know, not gonna happen, but it would be fun.