A split Michigan Supreme Court has denied an appeal by Jill Stein in the Michigan recount case.
The official ruling says the court ruled against Stein being able to appeal because the justices were not convinced the question before them needed to be reviewed.
The Michigan Court of Appeals originally ruled against Stein, saying she did not meet the standard of an "aggrieved" candidate. She needed to meet that standard in order to request a recount in the state.
However, several justice wrote in a dissent that Stein should have been allowed to request the recount under the aggrieved standard.
Stein released the following statement on the decision:
Although we are deeply disappointed in today’s decision by the Michigan Supreme Court not to hear our appeal that would have allowed Michigan’s recount to finish, we are not surprised given the political motives of the majority. The fact is that in Michigan, political cronyism, bureaucratic obstruction, and legal maneuvering have run roughshod over the democratic process. The importance of this recount has been reiterated every step of the way, including by Judge Mark Goldsmith who said that recounts are a way to ensure the ‘fundamental right to vote, and to have that vote conducted fairly and conducted accurately, which is the bedrock of our nation.’ A recount should not be this difficult or controversial. It should be automatic. If you take out money from a bank, the teller counts it twice - and the second time, they count it in front of your eyes. It should be well understood that something as important as a presidential election requires a basic level of quality assurance and verification.
“The purpose of this recount was to validate the vote and restore confidence in elections, yet the three days of recounts unearthed serious flaws in our voting system and today’s decision creates more cause for unease. Eighty-seven optical scanners failed on Election Day in Detroit, many in communities of color - and due to state law, almost half of Detroit’s votes can’t even be recounted. We need to examine how the use of poorly maintained, antiquated voting machines in underserved communities results in a de facto ‘Jim Crow’ situation in which potentially thousands of poor voters and voters of color may be disenfranchised. The protracted resistance to a recount only reinforces the perception that Donald Trump’s cronies and the entrenched powers in the state either benefit from this broken system or have something to hide. Despite today’s ruling, we will continue to fight for the hard-fought, hard-won civil voting rights of all Americans and urge leaders and legislators to use the lessons learned in this process to ensure a more just, accurate and reliable voting system.
