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

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purging process

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in The Blade about Ohio’s voter purge law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

“I don’t think there’s any real reason to believe that the drop-off is going to be significant,” Mr. Foley said. “The Ohio law that was upheld in this case never disenfranchised anybody.”

 

 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Upholds Most Texas Districts in Racial Gerrymandering Case

In a 5-4 decision that reversed the ruling of the District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the drawing of most of the disputed Texas districts did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The case is Abbott v. Perez.

more info & analysis...