OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Schuette v. Board of State Canvassers

Case Information

Date Filed: December 2, 2016
State: Michigan
Issue: Recount Resources
Courts that Heard this Case: Michigan Court of Appeals (Case 335947)

Issue:

Whether the recount request of Jill Stein is a dilatory and frivolous request of an unaggrieved party. The plaintiff's main argument is that Jill Stein does not constitute an "aggrieved" party as required for a recount by MCL 168.879(b).

 The plaintiff asks the court for to issue a writ of mandamus to prohibit the recount of presidential ballots because Jill Stein is not an aggrieved party. Alternatively, the plaintiff asks the court to issue a writ of mandamus to (1) stop the recount until two business days after the Board of State Canvassers resolves objections to the recount petition; (2) complete any recount and certify electors to the federal government by December 13 or to certify prior to the initial elector results; and (3) conduct the recount process electronically and not by hand.

 

Status:

Complaint filed 12/2/2016. Order to consolidate case with Donald Trump's case against Board of State Canvassers issued 12/5/16. Hearing scheduled for 4pm on 12/6/16. Per Curiam Opinion issuing writ of mandamus and ordering Board of Canvassers to reject Stein's recount petition filed 12/6/16.

Related case: Stein v. Thomas

 

District Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Gerrymandering as Viewpoint Discrimination: A "Functional Equivalence" Test

Edward B. Foley

A First Amendment test for identifying when a map is functionally equivalent to a facially discriminatory statute.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

This is why US election ballots routinely go missing

Professor Dan Tokaji was quoted in USA Today about the prevalence of missing election ballots.

 

"Most of the time, it just goes unreported because it doesn't affect the result," Tokaji said. 


more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Finds Partisan Gerrymandering Claims to be Non-Justiciable Political Questions

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on Thursday determining that claims of partisan gerrymandering are political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. The opinion resolved disputes originating in North Carolina and Maryland, in the cases of Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.

more info & analysis...