Failed Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein sued for a recount in Michigan. That suit has created tension between Michigan’s state government and the federal government.
Tuesday evening, Michigan’s Court of Appeals ordered a halt to the recount, saying Stein was not an aggrieved candidate who would benefit from a recount. At the same time, the 6th Circuit ruled the must proceed.
From Michigan’s Attorney General:
The Detroit Free Press reported:
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….Andrea Bitely, a spokeswoman for Schuette, said the Michigan Court of Appeals said “there is no conflict between” its order and the federal district court’s temporary restraining order, so the recount should end immediately.However, “to ensure clarity for Michigan taxpayers, (and as recommended in the 6th Circuit’s opinion issued this evening), the Attorney General is now filing in the federal district court a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order,” Bitely said.Mark Brewer, an attorney for Stein, said the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay the Republicans’ request to stop the recount, so it will continue until all the parties can get back to federal court to plead their case, again, before Goldsmith.The state panel said that to qualify as “aggrieved,” Stein “must be able to allege a good faith belief that but for mistake or fraud,” she would have had a reasonable chance of winning.”
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY