Michigan’s Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette has filed a lawsuit to prevent a recount of the presidential vote. He has several complaints, but one of them is just odd.
“Although [Green Party candidate Jill] Stein had the ability to request a recount from the moment the polls closed on November 9, 2016, she waited an additional three weeks — until the last possible minute under Michigan law — to do so.
The New York Giants used to have a head football coach named Tom Coughlin who expected his players to be in team meetings five minutes early and would fine them if they were later than that. This caused a big blow-up with his All-Pro defensive end, Michael Strahan, when he got fined for showing up right on time. They eventually settled their dispute and won a Super Bowl together, but they weren’t dealing with a binding legal document.
I don’t know how you go into court and argue that the plaintiff is out of line for filing their complaint on the last day it was legally allowable to do so. I don’t know how you even put something like that in writing.
Some of his other arguments aren’t much better. He says that Stein’s recount petition should be rejected because she didn’t get that many votes. That’s not how the law works. He says it will cost more than she’s forced to pay, but that’s not her problem. He says that they don’t have time to do a recount, but that’s not her problem, either.
Maybe he has a better case than I’m laying out here, but it seems like he’s just doing a lot of whining without much of anything legal to back him up.
I’m sure his position is politically popular, since most Michiganders probably don’t want to pay any taxpayer dollars for a recount that is unlikely to change the result of the state’s election, let alone the overall one. But that doesn’t mean that it will hold up in court.
Now, I suppose that there might be a legitimate issue if a hand recount will take so long that it will prevent Michigan’s electors from being certified on December 13th. They need to be certified six days before they convene on December 19th and make their selections for president. If they cannot be certified, it’s possible that Michigan’s votes won’t be counted, but even that would not change the outcome of the election. Still, a state court might weigh the threat of total disenfranchisement higher than the threat of inaccuracy.
But that would only argue against a hand recount. And whether she’s entitled to a hand recount is a matter of statutory language and interpretation, not special pleading.
Just for clarity, Clinton is currently down in the certified Michigan vote by just under 11,000 votes. In Pennsylvania, yesterday, they finished counting all the provisional ballots from Philadelphia County, and it added 24,000 votes to Clinton’s total, bringing her deficit there down from about 70,000 to about 46,000.
There shouldn’t be any provisional ballots left to count in Michigan since they already certified their vote, but I did notice when 24,000 votes suddenly turned up out of Philly that no one seemed to be talking about. That’s more than her current deficit in both Michigan and Wisconsin.
Gee, I don’t suppose Roger Stone had anything to do with this. And if the court denies the call to suppress the recount, he’ll have his army of people there to disrupt the recount anyway.
Why oh why are there people still talking about Trump as a incompetent, a carnival barker, and the folks around him as losers? They’re not losers. They’re dangerous. They reject democratic norms and pose a clear danger to the survival of the American republic.
I contributed $100 to the recount fund. I want it to go ahead. And I want the attempts to disrupt the recount to be shown on prime time.
The legal argument is called Laches, and it is a valid one in certain contexts.
No idea what the case law is, but in a court of equity it makes sense.
This:
Any numbers on the percentage of provisional ballots that were rejected?
You next to last paragraph explains your last paragraph.
No. Just, no.
Laches generally operates where there is no statute of limitations to bar a claim. It basically means “You waited too long for this to be fair.”
A statutory deadline is just that: A deadline. No one can argue that the statute says “You have until Day X, but not really.” The statute provides notice of just when a request for a recount can be made. The statute controls. Laches isn’t an issue.
Yes this.
Yes, I understand this.
I have seen it used in criminal cases in ways not too dissimilar from this one. It is a crap argument, but one that kinda sort of makes sense.
That’s a pretty amazing jump in votes. Let’s get these recounts done. Who knows what is the true situation?
I have heard that the difference in senatorial and presidential votes in WI is 45K. That is, 45K persons did not vote for POTUS who did vote for Senator. That’s 2% or so. Is that high? Dunno. I would like to have a hand inspection of some of those ballots, however.
I did not vote for POTUS, and I am sure that many others did not as well.
Same everywhere. In NV they have a none of the above choice – which went from less than a half a point to over 2%.
People left the top line blank, or wrote someone in.
I’m thoroughly angered. You actually thought there was an equivalency of bad between Clinton and Trump, much less the 3rd party candidates? You bought into the Hillary is evil meme? It is certainly your right to abstain, buy I am nevertheless angry that you and those like you have visited a Trump Presidency upon us all.
Because the one thing I do know is that anger and resentment gets the GOP base to the vote each and every time, but I guess it’s Hillary’s fault she didn’t motivate you to fulfill your civic responsibility and help propel the responsible party to victory.
Don’t know where you got that 45 thousand number from. I’ve pulled all the WI POTUS and Senate vote totals by county and these are the totals:
POTUS: 2,946,203
Senate: 2,947,060
That looks like 867 MORE votes in the Senate race. Not a stretch to believe that some people skipped the top ballot line.
Ah, the good ol’ reliable “I have heard that . . . “, always a red flag.
“dataguy” might wanna revisit the irony of his self-assigned nic?
Republicans are always complaining about the need to reform our laws to stop “frivolous” lawsuits. Maybe they should start with lawsuits like this one. Like that would ever happen . . .
What Republicans really mean when they say “frivolous lawsuits” is “lawsuits that give a small bit of power to the powerless.”
Just as you noted with regard to the situation in Michigan, the PA AG’s lawsuit to stop a re-count relies heavily on the argument that the PA EC electors will not be able to participate in the EC if the state results are not certified in less than two weeks (effectively disenfranchising the entire State), and hence the three week delay in asking for a recount should be considered by the court as a factor in its decision.
Not the greatest argument in the world, but not stone cold stupid either.
lawsuits are twin to “judicial activism”.
Both accurately translate to “legal activity that leads (or has potential to lead) to an outcome we don’t want, and never mind the legal merits or lack thereof.”
It’s really that simple. There’s no other “principle” involved (see rightwing silence [else applause] in the face of rampant actual judicial activism by Roberts court, e.g., invention of “corporate person”‘s religion and religious freedom protections in Hobby Lobby; btw, have I mentioned I will never, ever even consider crossing the threshold of a Hobby Lobby [not that I ever have, but there would have been a remote possibility I might some day; no more]? I have now. Recommend same for everyone.)
Yes, these seem like losing arguments. Presumably the Repub AG is attempting to raise some specter of “prejudice” to the state by Stein waiting until the last day of the deadline to file the recount petition, maybe because of some claimed “risk” to certification (this was a big excuse by the 5 conservative activist justices in Bush v Gore as I recall). But as jrethsa indicates above, this should be a DOA argument under the statute.
It’s possible that the AG thinks that the MI Supreme Court is controlled by partisan Repubs who will deliver a partisan ruling no matter how baseless the argument(s)–this is now a routine occurrence with the 5 conservative male activists that have been in control of the US Supreme Court, for example. Or maybe Der Trumper had Rinse Preetus call the AG and simply demand that the lawsuit be filed because Protests Bad or the Strongman Objects. Who the hell knows?
Perhaps Trumper (and Team Repub) just don’t like anything going on that gives Trumper a little indigestion, even if it’s inconceivable that 11,000 votes could be switched or altered; it’s generally impossible, historically. This is not exactly Bush v Gore.
So it’s kind of strange Team Electoral College thinks this sort of dubious “obstacle” needs to be erected. But it will be very instructive how the MI courts handle these conserva-crap arguments and it will give MI citizens an idea of how decayed the objective “rule of law” may have become in their state.
Two Republican PACs have sued in federal court to stop the Wisconsin recount. The grounds is Bush vs. Gore – the idea that the ballots would be treated differently. I’m not sure how they figure this, so I’ll try to track down the actual language when I get a minute, but now it’s in federal court.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Supes get it again. I expect Kennedy has regrets about how that went last time.
A federal judge has denied the request I mentioned above to halt the recount. Hearing is set for December 9, and recounting will continue in the interim unless stopped by something else. Like armed mobs. I’m not kidding.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/12/02/walker-considers-change-recount-law
94798548
The challenges happened in all three states at once.
I know, I’ve studied the system and I know how hard it would be to shift that many votes in a manner that is undetected. Furthermore, the demographics in that state and the resulting vote are consistent with what was seen in non-swing states so it’s not likely there was any fixing going on.
But, at the same time, imagine a banana republic hosting an election in which all of the following were true. 1) All advanced polling and exit polling indicated a result different than what happened. 2) The swing in votes benefited one candidate, and was especially concentrated in 3 provinces which were thought to be safe for the other candidate. The winning candidate won both by slim margins. 3) Nationally the winning candidate lost by a good margin – he squeaked by only because of his narrow margin in those 3 provinces. 4) The 3 provinces had recently been taken over by his own party, which changed voting districts and rules to benefit that party. AND … 5) When a legal recount began in all three provinces, the winning candidate’s party quickly tried to stop the recount legally.
Well, what would we conclude in that case?
hmm. anyway, I am very glad they’re doing the recount,
lived all that right here in this banana republic.
and good to point it out. I’m most curious about what happened in Milwaukee County Wisconsin where it’s reported a lot Obama voters (already pro-Hillary voters) couldn’t get ID easily. I guess we know it already, but it would be nice to have it on record confirmed on a recount Republicans object to. Makes a point.
Love how lazy we are in Wisconsin. Long ago gave over to corporate control (“they’ll take care of it; we’ll be fine”) we remain “optimistic” in words of an average otherwise Republican voter that insisted (yes, insisted) “well, I didn’t vote for him.” The rest of us are aghast. We are apopleclectically Kansan now. Wisconsin is the new Kansas of the non-coastal states of America. What did we do wrong? Did we not love Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, or (it goes on so long without meaning) Pennsylvania?
What does Pennsylvania want? That’s what I’d like to know. Right here. Right now. From an actual, purported, north of Philadelphia (or is it south and so much and so what of it?) fuck-you-all-I’ve-got-mine-who-gives-a-shit-about-you point-of-view Pennsylvanian? Pennsylvania’s all fucked up. Like, you all think you’re New York or something. Like you’re barely us. You know what I mean?
Help us out, man. We’ve got little to offer, but we’re fighting. Looks to me like Pennsylvania’s unwilling to fight.
Are you?
Milwaukee County numbers
Total votes on the presidential ballot line:
Obama: 328,090
Romney: 158,430
Difference: 169,660
Clinton: 288,986
Trump: 126,091
Difference: 162,895
In very few counties did Clinton get more votes that Obama did in ’12 and it didn’t matter if Obama carried or lost the county in ’12. In very few counties did Trump not get more votes than Romney in ’12. Milwaukee and neighboring Waukesha (solidly Republican) were the two large exceptions to Trump’s statewide performance and kept his overall vote total to just a mere 1,712 more than Romney’s.
Little bleg here. Anyone know where I can get the actual text of the federal suit? All I’m googling up is media coverage, mostly the same few articles echoed through various sources.
google that? Especially Fed/Appeals courts often post legal docs online.
2) Look for links to doc in those media reports you googled up (e.g., in sidebars)? NYT, e.g., does this pretty regularly I think (should be standard practice imo, i.e., provide access to the primary source doc summarized in the reporting in addition to summarizing in the news article; especially now that the intertubes have made that relatively cheap and easy to do).
I was goggling, of course. I any case, I did find it. It is here.
http://support.greatamericapac.com/recountdocs.pdf
I was wondering if there was more to it than media accounts suggested, but it’s asking for a straightforward redo of Bush vs. Gore. Inconsistent standards because “intent of the voter” is vague; therefore, unequal protection.
These are not filed in federal court, but state courts. The AG filed in the Michigan Supreme Court and the Trump campaign filed in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Michigan Supreme Court is dominated by Republican nominees over Democratic ones 5-2. That does not bode well for the recount. My hope is that Mark Brewer, Jill Stein’s lawyer who is a former Michigan Democratic Party chair, makes an effective argument that Schuette does not have standing. Personally, he doesn’t. Unfortunately, the court may rule that the State of Michigan does.
As for the Republicans’ arguments, I’m reminded of the old lawyer joke: When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither is on your side, pound the table. I feel sorry for the table right now.
No, the one I’m talking about is federal. There are also the state ones.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-super-pac-wisconsin-recount-232121
Regarding the 2000 recount, I discovered that despite everyone’s concern about this December deadline, it is pretty meaningless in the long run. I was in the DC Metropolitan area at the time (and very angry with the Supreme Court). When the deadline arrived, I called the Washington Post writer who had written most of the articles about this deadline. I asked if the deadline was met and all the electors were certified. He said he “supposed” so. He never followed up on it. Told me it wasn’t important. I asked why but did not get a satisfactory answer. However, the deadline was determined when typewriters didn’t even exist, let alone computers and cell phones. I think if a recount is needed for the Presidential election, it should be done. And, it should be allowed to be completed in a way that the American people are assured the recount is correct. I think the recount should also not have an arbitrary deadline. Delaware’s vote count would not take as long as California’s. I would like to see rules for a recount to be done by election workers from election day and others if needed. The rules should also include that the recount should take place during a normal workday; e.g., eight hours or, perhaps, ten hours a day for as many days as needed. The reason I believe that a recount should not involve counting the votes all day and all night is because as human beings, we can only work a certain numbers of hours without making mistakes. Some of the Florida workers in 2000 had been without sleep for days–not really able to do their best work. In this day and age of computers, a recount if needed should be doable and completed within a reasonable amount of time–still meeting the December deadline. Also, if I am remembering correctly the Supreme (Idiots) Court specifically stated in the decision of Bush v. Gore that it was not to be used for precedent.
Bush v. Gore’s disclaimer re: setting no precedent — one of the ways it’s in the running for one of worst SCOTUS decisions ever, up there with Dred Scott, Plessy-Ferguson, etc.). I vividly remember that jumping out at me as I read through the decision within minutes of its posting online. Along with the legalistic absurdity of invoking “equal protection” rights of paper ballots to be treated in precisely the same manner to trump the “equal protection” rights of tens of thousands of actual human voters to have their votes counted at all!
(Can you tell I didn’t “get over it”, despite the continuous sneering “advice” from rightwing assholes in the aftermath to do so? Nor do I intend to.)
I never got over it, either. And, like you, never will. As I will never get over this election either.