The Michigan Attorney General has filed a lawsuit to block the MI recount:
He claims the recount is expensive and will cost taxpayers millions of dollars. But isn’t Jill Stein’s fund paying for the recount? Why would the taxpayers be paying if (as I understand it) Michigan provided an estimate of the costs, and Stein is paying those costs?
Thanks.
From the Detroit Free Press:
It sounds like Stein paid a flat fee instead of made a commitment to cover all costs.being committed to cover all costs. That opens the possibility that she isn’t paying for the whole thing. Whether the higher estimates have any validity, or that the cost is a reason to ignore the recount request under MI law is up to the judge.
Stein only put up a little less than $1M and whether they’ll cover the rest of the $2M or so is still a point of discussion.
Imho, 2 mill seems low since Wisconsin is apparently going to cost 3 1/2 million.
So Michigan wants to file a lawsuit to avoid paying costs that they originally agreed to?
Maybe they can just declare bankruptcy.
Because he’s a Republican?
If recounts actually cost more than the cited figure, maybe they need to raise the cost…next time.
But yeah, Schutte is a real tool. When he defended Michigan’s same sex marriage ban he claimed it was just standing up for the will of the people as expressed in a referendum some years back. But this same guy has done everything he can to dick around the medical marijuana law, also passed by referendum.
Of all the right-wing partisan hacks in Lansing, Schutte is among the hackiest. And, hey, lucky us, he’s the fucking Attorney General.
His argument, as presented here, seems pretty bogus. If Stein is following the rules, but the rules are poorly written, how does he get to rewrite the rules on the fly? He might decide to flip her the bird and call her an asshole when he sees her, that’s cool, but unless there’s some higher law he’s referencing, I don’t see he’s actually making a legal argument.
Could you clarify what you mean by suggesting the AG and/or Trump are rewritng the rules?
I’ve read a couple of articles, and he seems to be suing to stop the recount because it’s frivolous and will cost too much. Do the rules for asking for a recount say, “But only if you seriously think you personally might win, and also if it doesn’t cost all that much”? If the rules contain nothing like those provisions, it looks like the AG is attempting to rewrite the rules.
It sounds like he’s fishing for any plausible reason he can find to stop the recounts, or at least delay them until it’s too late.
Michigan recount law: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dho1ds45nhb4jt452rgcli45))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-116-1954-XXXIII.pdf
There are two possible requests for recount. The second one is only for amendments or ballot questions, so it doesn’t apply. The relevant one is:
“A candidate for office who believes he or she is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the canvass or returns of the votes by the election inspectors may petition for a recount of the votes cast for that office in any precinct or precincts as provided in this chapter.”
I think the AG’s argument is that Stein cannot be “aggrieved” since there is absolutely no possibility that any recount will make her win the state. Or “only if you seriously think you personally might win” in your words.
She is eager to present her party as a growing concern. This is a legitimate standing for a political party. And I’m not at all sure that a member of an opposing party can be empowered to make a decision about what is or what is not “substantial”.
Does the wording of the law specify the Atty Gen of the state as being sole arbiter of the question?
I suppose the argument could be made that the legislature must have had a reason for using the word “aggrieved” rather than the word “lost”. “Aggrieved” has a broader meaning than “lost” so their intent may have been that anyone who believes that fraud has been committed against them can petition for a recount regardless of who won or lost or whether their is any hope of the aggrieved changing the outcome in her favor. Of course it seems obvious that any fraud would have been against Clinton, not Stein, but there still may be some argument made about an opponent fraudulently increasing their total; or maybe not, IANAL.
I don’t see why any fraud that gave Trump votes would have necessarily all come from Clinton: any such fraud would be equal opportunity.
And anyway Miss Stein could be dispassionately aggrieved, as in having a grievance, merely from the fact of fraud.
Black’s Law Dictionary has the legal definition.
http://thelawdictionary.org/aggrieved/
I’m not sure how this applies to Stein’s recount. Does she have standing simply because she did lose? I would think that there would have to be a credible chance that her loss was a result of fraud or error but, as I said, IANAL.
Well, I guess it’ll be up to the court to better define “aggrieved”, though I suppose they could refuse to hear the case and let the Board of State Canvassers’ decision stand. As of now, the recount is on. The board was split and therefore rejected Trump’s objection.
I want to see a recount, just on principle. I was just wondering about the fine points of the law.
Doesn’t the Green Party need some level of voter support in order to qualify for a number of things that recognize their legitimacy? In which case, the question of winning or losing is moot.
So the Establishment parties can forever block opposition, Repubs and Demos, squatting in a tree:
“This is Our Thing, little people: you can only proceed to get voter support when you have enough voter support.…”