# Validity of Michigan Attorney General's arguments to stop recount **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 2, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673 "2016-12-02T22:24:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/21 "2016-12-03T18:15:47Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > “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. However, there may be other threshholds that are not just winning like the party gets to be considered a major party in Michigan if they get x% of the vote. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/22 "2016-12-03T18:23:03Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I want to see a recount, just on principle. I was just wondering about the fine points of the law. What principle? I mean the vote was pretty close, probably the only of the three Stein went after remotely likely to be changed by a recount. But it won’t change the end result and Michigan isn’t using some new fangled or opaque voting method. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/23 "2016-12-03T19:40:28Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > 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._…” Does voter support come from The Establishment or from voters? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/24 "2016-12-03T20:11:54Z")
The Establishment can certainly discourage voters from selecting alternatives: “_It’s a wasted vote, my pretties_.” — “\*By voting for the one you _ **prefer** _, wicked old R or D will get in ! Beware ! Beware ! \*” — “_No, only **regular** parties can help structure the voting system and gerrymander the districts_.” Seems to work. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/25 "2016-12-03T21:30:48Z")
About all a hand recount will catch will be cases where the little circle wasn’t completely obscured. (The optical equivalent of the hanging chad.) ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2016, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/26 "2016-12-03T23:52:49Z")
> [@aaelghat](#): > > The Michigan Attorney General [has filed a lawsuit to block the MI recount](http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/michigan-attorney-general-files-suit-to-stop-recount/index.html): > > 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. As someone above posted, the law regarding recounts and who can request them may not allow Jill Stein to request a recount. She may not meet the definition of “aggrieved”. That’s up to the court to decide; certainly a cogent legal argument can be made that, given the disparity of votes between her and Donald Trump, she’s not aggrieved by any miscounting of votes that might have happened, in the absence of evidence of massive fraud. The money aspect is mostly just to get Michigan voters all upset. But it also has a legal purpose. He will undoubtedly be trying to show that letting the recount continue to conclusion, THEN worrying about the legality of the effort (or the results) will cause massive expenses which won’t be covered by the fees that can be charged under the law. This gives the court incentive to act with immediacy. He’s also raising the issue of not meeting the “safe-harbor” deadline for that same reason, I suspect. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/27 "2016-12-04T00:15:37Z")
The question of whether or not she could win is not necessarily the crux of the biscuit. If she needs to get to a certain percentage of votes to qualify for any electoral standard, then, yeah, she is “aggrieved”. If she raises the money to pay for it and volunteers to do so, then why the hell not? I am also wholly in favor of a nationwide conversation about how we vote, where, and so forth. That some of our citizens vote first-class and some others vote economy just ain’t right and could be fixed. Opposition to that generally comes from folks who are pretty content with The Way Things Are. Almost a matter of faith, really. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2016, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/28 "2016-12-04T01:25:07Z")
I do know that there is a minimum percentage that a candidate must get to maintain their party ballot line for the next election. What that standard is and if she got it or not are things I do not know. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/29 "2016-12-04T02:03:20Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > I do know that there is a minimum percentage that a candidate must get to maintain their party ballot line for the next election. What that standard is and if she got it or not are things I do not know. Michigan distinguishes between “minor parties” and “major parties”. The qualifying threshold is 5% of the total vote. There is another qualification - to be a minor party (as opposed to “independent candidate”). That threshold is 1%. Stein got 1.1%. There is absolutely no way she’d get to 5% from the recount. So - no being “aggrieved” in any way other than the abstract. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2016, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/30 "2016-12-04T05:52:13Z")
I read _Kennedy v. Board of Canvassers_, 339 NW 2d 477 (Mich Ct App 1983) to lean towards saying that “aggrieved,” means someone who could have won but for the failures in proper counting: > [@](#): > > It is also true, however, that slight changes in one or all of the wards specified, if in relator’s favor, without corresponding changes in favor of Mr. Culver, will be sufficient to change the result announced. The petition is verified, the statute a beneficial one. Under all of the circumstances, we must decline to hold the petition insufficient. The Court there is quoting with approval an earlier case. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2016, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/31 "2016-12-04T06:05:40Z")
That makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2016, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/32 "2016-12-04T06:20:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I read _Kennedy v. Board of Canvassers_, 339 NW 2d 477 (Mich Ct App 1983) to lean towards saying that “aggrieved,” means someone who could have won but for the failures in proper counting: > > The Court there is quoting with approval an earlier case. Which means that the Michigan Attorney General probably has a good case, since there’s no way Ms. Stein could have won but for any claimed failures in proper counting. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2016, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/33 "2016-12-06T02:50:08Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Michigan distinguishes between “minor parties” and “major parties”. The qualifying threshold is 5% of the total vote. > > There is another qualification - to be a minor party (as opposed to “independent candidate”). That threshold is 1%. > > Stein got 1.1%. There is absolutely no way she’d get to 5% from the recount. So - no being “aggrieved” in any way other than the abstract. So the ultimate irony would be if after the recount Stein gets 0.9% of the vote. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/34 "2016-12-07T01:47:48Z")
Michigan appeals court rules on the AG’s argument: > **[Michigan appeals court rejects Jill Stein's recount as unlawful](https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/06/trump-schuette-michigan-recount-election/95048550/)** > > A three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals said Michigan's recount is unlawful because Stein can't win \*"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 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." Stein’s petition sent to the Board of State Canvassers “lacks even the most general allegations from which the board could infer that a recount would change the outcome of the election in Dr. Stein’s favor,” the panel said, given that she lost by more than 2.2 million votes.\* This is now bounced to federal court. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2016, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/35 "2016-12-07T14:58:15Z")
It’s not “bounced” to federal court. The matter in the Michigan state courts would be appealed, if at all, to the Michigan Supreme Court. A separate legal effort in the federal courts is already underway. Indeed, Michigan was ordered by a federal judge to proceed with the recount prior to the cited Michigan Court of Appeals decision, and after that decision, the federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected requests from Michigan officials to block the order of the federal judge. The result is that, at least in some counties, the recount is proceeding. It is important from your cite to note that the Michigan courts at least seem to agree that the legal theory cited about “aggrieved party” by the Michigan Attorney General is valid. And I’m curious if the federal judge was ruling that the recount request was valid, and should proceed despite Michigan court orders, or was ruling that, IF it was valid, it had to be initiated without waiting the mandated two days (Michigan law). If the latter, then the Michigan court decisions may spell doom to the effort. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/36 "2016-12-08T01:13:49Z")
… and the Michigan recount is canceled. > **[Federal judge ends Michigan presidential recount](https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2016/12/08/federal-judge-ends-michigan-presidential-recount/)** > > A federal judge has put an end to the recount of presidential votes in Michigan. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/37 "2016-12-08T05:39:46Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > … and the Michigan recount is canceled. > > [Federal judge ends Michigan presidential recount](http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/federal-judge-ends-michigan-presidential-recount) Which pretty well answered my final question. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/38 "2016-12-20T21:21:59Z")
And may I just point out that the opinion did cite Kennedy v. Board of Canvassers and adopted the reasoning I mention. Sadly, my post here is uncredited in the opinion. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2016, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673/39 "2016-12-21T01:18:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And may I just point out that the opinion did cite Kennedy v. Board of Canvassers and adopted the reasoning I mention. > > Sadly, my post here is uncredited in the opinion. Don’t you just hate when people use your intellectual work and you don’t get the nod? 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-michigan-attorney-generals-arguments-to-stop-recount/773673.md?page=1)