Support NeoGAF

[Shard]

http://www.eclectablog.com/2016/12/...ecount-update-its-getting-very-very-ugly.html
Lot of stuff here, much more at the jump above.

2016, Bill Schuette, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton — December 6, 2016
Michigan presidential recount update – it’s getting very, very ugly
by Eclectablog

When Green Party candidate Jill Stein announced her intention to demand recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, I was skeptical. In fact, it looked to me like she was simply using it as a way to raise money and, more importantly, her profile along with getting Democrats to sign up for her email list. I’m still not so sure that I am wrong about that. However, events over the past couple of days have me rethinking my opinion that the entire thing is a colossal waste of time.

First, we have the fact that both the Trump campaign and our State Attorney General, Bill Schuette, along with the Michigan Republican Party, are fighting the recount tooth and nail. A federal judge ruled over the weekend that the recount should proceed and saying that the recount “must continue until further order of this court.” This suggested that nothing being done at the state level, including any rulings by the state supreme court, could change that.

However, the Trump campaign, the Michigan Republican Party, and Schuette are vigorously pursuing shutting down the recount, an effort that is reminiscent of Supreme Court decision that handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush. The MRP has filed its own suit asking for a stay of the federal judge’s order and demanding an en banc review by all the judges of the 6th Circuit of the order. Schuette claims that Jill Stein, because she received only 3% of the vote, is not “aggrieved” and therefore has no standing to demand the recount. He is seeking to join the federal suit.

One more thing: In their fever to shut down the recount, Republicans in the state legislature are rushing through a bill – House Bill 6097 – sponsored by Lisa Lyons (the same woman who introduced voter suppression legislation this week) that would require any candidate requesting a recount and who received less than 5% of the vote to pay 100% of the costs of the recount. According the House Fiscal Agency’s analysis of the bill, “if the percentage differential is less than 5%, the current law—that the petitioner must only pay $25 per district for which the petitioner is requesting a recount—will remain in effect.”

The final line of the bill says, “This amendatory act is retroactive and effective January 1, 2016” meaning that they are retroactively applying this to specifically punish Jill Stein.

They held a hearing on the bill this morning and I’ll be shocked if it isn’t voted out and sent to Gov. Snyder for his signature in record time.

Like I said, it’s getting very, very ugly.

 

[Mugsy]

http://www.eclectablog.com/2016/12/...ecount-update-its-getting-very-very-ugly.html
Lot of stuff here, much more at the jump above.

Isn't making retroactive bills illegal? Or is that only with retroactively criminalizing something?

 

[Kinitari]

That retroactive bill is so transparent it's insane.

 

[Atenhaus]

Ex post facto laws are considered unconstitutional. I don't see how this can fly.

 

[WedgeX]

If Michigan was actually paying for assistance to Flint with the lead poisoning, I might be able to get behind some type of reasoning Schuette would put forth.

Instead Michigan is fighting any attempts to make the state help. Which leads me to believe that someone in Michigan did something bad and doesn't want to get caught. Again.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

I largely saw this as a waste of time. However, Trump and Republican's aggressive means to stop this recount is now making me think we should do a recount.

 

[mlclmtckr]

I was hoping the headline meant that they actually found some tampering or something.

 

[Jeels]

I largely saw this as a waste of time. However, Trump and Republican's aggressive means to stop this recount is now making me think we should do a recount.

Ya might as well carry it through just to show everyone what crooks these guys are.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Ex post facto laws are considered unconstitutional. I don't see how this can fly.

It probably won't, but the litigation will take us way past the point where any of this will matter.

 

[Maximus.]

It shouldn't be an issue to do a recount. There shouldn't be a way for these people to make bills to largely punish the act. If he won, then a recount would prove it.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Ex post facto laws are considered unconstitutional. I don't see how this can fly.

Stalling for time

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Ex post facto laws are considered unconstitutional. I don't see how this can fly.

I'm not sure what the plan is. Killing time? I mean, having that law passed, then found unconstitutional and overturning it would take time. Once Inauguration Day passes, none of it matters anyway.

 

[SolarPowered]

This whole election was a mess.

 

[derder]

We had the NC Governor demand a recount before he conceded yesterday. It's most definitely a waste of taxpayer money.

 

[manakel]

I have so many questions about this. Why are they so actively trying to stop a recount in Michigan if they're certain he legitimately won. A recount would just further prove that, no? And even if a recount was done and flipped to Hillary, she STILL wouldn't win. So why are they trying to retroactively make a bill to punish Jill Stein?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Darryl M R]

We had the NC Governor demand a recount before he conceded yesterday. It's most definitely a waste of taxpayer money.

But isn't the recount paid for already with the donations raised?

How are taxpayer's money being wasted when those funds would go to the state?

Why oppose something that you won fair?

 

[FrontalMonk]

I have so many questions about this. Why are they so actively trying to stop a recount in Michigan if they're certain he legitimately won. A recount would just further prove that, no? And even if a recount was done and flipped to Hillary, she STILL wouldn't win. So why are they trying to retroactively make a bill to punish Jill Stein?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

I mean on the surface, that's true. But if MI were to flip, it raises the legitimacy of the other states that were in play, and ultimately the legitimacy of the election as a whole. Trump goes from having a narrow upset to having literally stolen the election, and it destroys faith in the electoral process. The R's are acting like dipshits and I don't like it, but no matter what happens there are no winners here.

 

[old manatee]

Jill Stein is being asked to personally shoulder the full financial burden of a presidential recount, and taxpayers are paying $500,000 a day to secure Donald Trump.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

I aint even mad at it. Jill only asked for a recount to scam a bunch of people afraid of Trump out of $6M. If the bill stops scammers like Jill who have no chance of winning from pulling another stunt like that then good.

 

[AuthenticM]

I largely saw this as a waste of time. However, Trump and Republican's aggressive means to stop this recount is now making me think we should do a recount.

Yup.

Something's amiss.

 

[Skellig Gra]

I have so many questions about this. Why are they so actively trying to stop a recount in Michigan if they're certain he legitimately won. A recount would just further prove that, no? And even if a recount was done and flipped to Hillary, she STILL wouldn't win. So why are they trying to retroactively make a bill to punish Jill Stein?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Timing is obviously very suspect but at a very high level it seems fairs, if someone has absolutely no chance of winning why should we indulge a recount request unless they want to fully foot the bill themselves? That is wasting tax payer money plain and simple. Had this proposal come in any other year it would be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Azure Dream]

"Nothing shady is happening here, and we'll break the law to make sure you can't check!"

I can't think of a better example of the upcoming Trump America.

 

[Tansut]

This whole election was a mess.

I say it every morning, every evening, and every afternoon. And it's so true.

 

[mid83]

I mean on the surface, that's true. But if MI were to flip, it raises the legitimacy of the other states that were in play, and ultimately the legitimacy of the election as a whole. Trump goes from having a narrow upset to having literally stolen the election, and it destroys faith in the electoral process. The R's are acting like dipshits and I don't like it, but no matter what happens there are no winners here.

Well based on what my Republican friends say, they believe that Dems are going to stuff ballot boxes to try to steal these states from Trump.

 

[Mask]

The amount of trouble they're causing over a recount that shouldn't change the result of the election makes me think they're scared of what will be found.

Makes me think that some tampering will be found, and they're scared of a chain reaction uncovering more tampering elsewhere..

 

[Vicetrailia]

Timing is obviously very suspect but at a very high level it seems fairs, if someone has absolutely no chance of winning why should we indulge a recount request unless they want to fully foot the bill themselves? That is wasting tax payer money plain and simple. Had this proposal come in any other year it would be perfectly acceptable.

Yeah right, this is retaliation. In another year it wouldn't have the retroactive part to it.

 

[The Jackdog]

sounds like they are going to pretty effectively block the recount.

personally i dont see why not, just fucking do the recount.

 

[TheOMan]

I have so many questions about this. Why are they so actively trying to stop a recount in Michigan if they're certain he legitimately won. A recount would just further prove that, no? And even if a recount was done and flipped to Hillary, she STILL wouldn't win. So why are they trying to retroactively make a bill to punish Jill Stein?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Yup - there's something wrong here. I wasn't for the recount before, especially for Jill Stein, but now...I'm thinking there should definitely be a recount in each of those states. It kinda feels like something dirty went down.

 

[CopperPuppy]

The fervor of the opposition to these recounts is confusing. I understand the belief that they are a waste of time, without a doubt. But vigorously opposing something doesn't exactly convey that you simply believe it to be a fool's errand. Rather, it begins to paint the picture that you don't want the recount to happen. And, if you do think it's a waste of time because it will simply confirm the results, then why wouldn't you want it to happen? Especially if the end result is not only to further confirm the integrity of the outcome but to brand those casting aspersions on it as fools. Why wouldn't they want that?

 

[KingBroly]

The amount of trouble they're causing over a recount that shouldn't change the result of the election makes me think they're scared of what will be found.

Makes me think that some tampering will be found, and they're scared of a chain reaction uncovering more tampering elsewhere..

I guess you didn't hear about Wayne County, MI?

They can't even recount a significant portion (50-60%) of ballots there. So a recount in MI is pointless.

 

[Somnid]

The fervor of the opposition to these recounts is confusing. I understand the belief that they are a waste of time, without a doubt. But vigorously opposing something doesn't exactly convey that you simply believe the recount to be a fool's errand. Rather, it begins to paint the picture that you don't want the recount to happen. And, if you do think it's a waste of time because it will simply confirm the results, then why wouldn't you want it to happen?

I think the main hang up is money. When you want to run a low-tax governement, double checking your work on administrative things can be seen as an unnecessary expense. There's also the "put your faith in the system" argument which is problematic because it's kinda just asking people to bury their heads in the sand for the sake of peace-keeping.

 

[Mr.Monitor]

Yeah, it's pretty clear this started as a scam for Jill to grab a quick couple million, but with the way things are growing it very well could turn into more than that. I have no doubt in my mind that if they dig deep enough they'll find something; how bad it is is the real question.

 

[jroc74]

I largely saw this as a waste of time. However, Trump and Republican's aggressive means to stop this recount is now making me think we should do a recount.

Yup.

Getting flashbacks to Gore - Bush.

 

[KingBroly]

Yup.

Getting flashbacks to Gore - Bush.

Wisconsin is showing it's a waste of time

Pennsylvania is impossible to recount

Michigan's a mess though. Having a Judge waive the 10th amendment away is insane.

 

[Link]

It probably won't, but the litigation will take us way past the point where any of this will matter.

The Republican special.

 

[Drazgul]

Ex post facto laws are considered unconstitutional. I don't see how this can fly.

Damn those liberals and their constitution malarkey.

 

[Enosh]

I have so many questions about this. Why are they so actively trying to stop a recount in Michigan if they're certain he legitimately won. A recount would just further prove that, no? And even if a recount was done and flipped to Hillary, she STILL wouldn't win. So why are they trying to retroactively make a bill to punish Jill Stein?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

1. the money Stein has to pay comes no where near the total cost of a recount, yo are asking Mi taxpayers to pay for a recount that doesn't conform with MI state law initiated by a fourth place finisher with around 1% of the vote
2. just like dems don't trust reps, reps don't trust dems, they fear the recount would be rigged

 

[User Name Here]

That retroactive bill is so transparent it's insane.

Like holy shit. They couldn't be more obvious if they tried.

I have so many questions about this. Why are they so actively trying to stop a recount in Michigan if they're certain he legitimately won. A recount would just further prove that, no? And even if a recount was done and flipped to Hillary, she STILL wouldn't win. So why are they trying to retroactively make a bill to punish Jill Stein?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Might be because they didn't legitimately win.

 

[User Name Here]

delete

 

[DragonSworne]

It's getting pretty clear that Trump cheated.

 

[Bob Coffee]

You would figure trump would be down with with a recount to show he won. But lol. I say proceed, 2016 aint done yet, and I think at this point the american people deserve an awnser.

 

[Skellig Gra]

It's getting pretty clear that Trump cheated.

I don't think so, the only active thing they did was voter suppression and a recount doesn't do anything for that. I think this is purely a spite move on the Republicans part. The re-count annoyed them so they are saying fuck you right back.

 

[takriel]

Putin *sweats*

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I largely saw this as a waste of time. However, Trump and Republican's aggressive means to stop this recount is now making me think we should do a recount.

.

I mean, it's not even bad optics at all for a recount that further solidifies that they won. And they aren't even PAYING for it!

Well the important thing is the news stays attached to this.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

It's getting pretty clear that Trump cheated.

Nah I dont think so.

 

[Sulik2]

I was hoping the headline meant that they actually found some tampering or something.

The way the Republicans are reacting to the recount demands certainly makes it seem like they are trying to hide something. :shrug

 

[Peltz]

Ex post facto laws are considered unconstitutional. I don't see how this can fly.

That is a common misconception. The clause you're thinking of only really applies applies state criminal laws. Here's a good law journal article on it:

http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=nlj

Many Americans mistakenly believe that retroactive legislation is barred by the ex post facto clauses of the Federal Constitution, which apply to both Congress and state legislatures.” Retroactive civil lawmaking in state legislatures is far from uncommon...


....While the United States Constitution offers meaningful constitutional restraint against retroactivity with regard to criminal
legislation, in terms of practical limitations upon state legislatures, these safeguards do not extend to civil legislation. Although several provisions of the United States Constitution offer potential sources of constitutional constraint upon retroactive civil lawmaking, ultimately, as they have been interpreted by the Supreme Court, these protections are extremely narrow, largely hollow, or both. The Article, in Section II, next transitions into exploring why lawyers, despite the limited nature of the protections available under the United States Constitution, nevertheless continue to pursue federal constitutional arguments while failing to advance claims that state legislatures’ retroactive civil lawmaking is unconstitutional under the lawyers’ respective state constitutions

It's a good read. I agree though, you'd think this example of retroactivity would be clearly illegal. It just smells wrong and unconstitutional.

 

[Waddle Dee]

It's getting pretty clear that Trump cheated.

Technically, all Republican Presidents have cheated in order to get into the White House for decades thanks to the way our system "works".

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

You would figure trump would be down with with a recount to show he won. But lol. I say proceed, 2016 aint done yet, and I think at this point the american people deserve an awnser.

At this point, Michigan's votes alone won't change the outcome of the election. From their standpoint the recount is unnecessary.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

It's getting pretty clear that Trump cheated.

lol, I mean, I'm not ready to go that far.