Donald J Trump v. Board of State Canvassers
335958
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- In the Nov. 8, 2016 presidential election Michigan certified totals showing Trump 2,279,543; Clinton 2,268,839; Stein 51,463. Stein sought a statewide hand recount on Nov. 30, 2016.
- Stein’s petition alleged she and her electors were “aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake” and requested a recount of all precincts; Trump objected that Stein was not aggrieved because she could not reasonably win.
- The Board of State Canvassers deadlocked 2–2 on Dec. 2, 2016, which by statute resulted in the petition being deemed approved; a federal court temporarily ordered the recount to begin.
- The Michigan Attorney General and President‑Elect Trump separately sought mandamus in the Michigan Court of Appeals directing the Board to reject Stein’s petition.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether MCL 168.879(1)(b)’s requirement that a petitioning candidate be “aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake” permits Stein’s petition given the enormous vote differential.
- The Court concluded Stein could not in good faith allege she was aggrieved (i.e., that but for fraud or mistake she had a reasonable chance to win) and ordered the Board to reject the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a recount petitioner must be an "aggrieved" candidate who can show a reasonable chance to win but for fraud/mistake | AG/Trump: Stein is not "aggrieved" because she cannot reasonably win given the large vote margin | Stein/Board: statute only requires a general allegation of being aggrieved; Board need not determine substantive likelihood of changing outcome | Court: "aggrieved" requires a good‑faith allegation that but for fraud/mistake the candidate would have a reasonable chance to prevail; Stein failed to allege this |
| Whether the Board had a legal duty to reject petitions that do not meet MCL 168.879(1)(b) | AG/Trump: Board must refuse petitions that do not satisfy statutory requirements | Board: its duties are limited to ruling on objections and investigating; it need not make threshold aggrievement determinations | Court: Board has clear legal duty to accept only petitions satisfying MCL 168.879 and to reject those that do not |
| Whether rejection of a deficient recount petition is discretionary or ministerial | AG/Trump: rejection on legal grounds is ministerial and mandamus is appropriate | Board: implied discretion in handling petitions | Court: rejecting a petition that fails statutory tests is ministerial; mandamus may issue |
| Whether any other remedy exists to prevent the recount | AG/Trump: no other adequate legal or equitable remedy | — | Court: no alternative remedy; mandamus appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State, 280 Mich. App. 273 (recount mandamus framework)
- Citizens for Protection of Marriage v. Board of State Canvassers, 263 Mich. App. 487 (standard for mandamus review)
- Rental Properties Owners Ass’n of Kent County v. Kent County Treasurer, 308 Mich. App. 498 (definition of clear legal right/duty for mandamus)
- Ward v. Culver, 144 Mich. 57 (recount petition sufficient where slight changes could alter result)
- Hillsdale County Senior Services, Inc. v. Hillsdale County, 494 Mich. 46 (definition of ministerial act)
- Federated Ins. Co. v. Oakland County Road Commission, 475 Mich. 286 (definition of "aggrieved" as requiring actual, not speculative, injury)