Originally posted by sh76
She insists she's more concerned about the accuracy of the election, but Goldsmith said Stein's legal team presented only "speculative claims" about vulnerable machines, "not actual injury."
The judge said a recount to test the integrity of the voting system "has never been endorsed by any court."
Hey, KD, how's that recount effort workin' ...[text shortened]... had the good sense to decline my bet proposal. I hope you didn't contribute money to the effort.
The decision is BS. Judges have no legitimate power to declare that a party who has fulfilled all the legal requirements to trigger a recount doesn't have "standing" because they can't, in the opinion of the judges, actually win from a recount of votes. The applicable statute is clear:
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.
We have seen from the first day in Wisconsin that votes for Jill Stein were omitted from the final counts; that is really all that is necessary for her and the people who supported her to be "aggrieved".
This is just another example of the corruption that our dominant two party system encourages and thrives by.
EDIT: I'm sorry I referenced the wrong statute; the applicable one is here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2jtdrxgipmwzaf2cnzdtfq51))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-879
as 1(a) make reference to section 841 which specifically includes the Presidential race.http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qhdrkiztldp3nhy5ibxpthal))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-168-841&query=on&highlight=841
Pertinent to the discussion is section 1 (b): (b) The petition alleges that the candidate is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the canvass of the votes by the inspectors of election or the returns made by the inspectors, or by a board of county canvassers or the board of state canvassers. The petition shall contain specific allegations of wrongdoing only if evidence of that wrongdoing is available to the petitioner. If evidence of wrongdoing is not available, the petitioner is only required to allege fraud or a mistake in the petition without further specification.
Stein's petition clearly meets all these statutory requirements and the State Courts had no justification for adding to them by creative interpretation of the word "aggrieved".
EDIT2: Incredibly given the statutory text I have put in bold
"Rather, Plaintiffs' asserted right to a recount is just a restatement of her right to participate in a fair election, free from tampering or mistake. But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order.
However, the statute is clear and unequivocal that such "evidence" is unnecessary:
, the petitioner is only required to allege fraud or a mistake in the petition without further specification.