Donald J Trump v. Board of State Canvassers
154887
| Mich. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- Jill Stein filed a petition for a statewide recount under MCL 168.879(1)(b) after the 2016 presidential election; the Board of State Canvassers rejected the petition and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on December 9, 2016, leaving the Court of Appeals’ judgment in place.
- Central statutory text: MCL 168.879(1)(b) requires that “the petition alleges that the candidate is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake…” and permits only bare allegations of fraud/mistake when evidence is not available.
- Majority (concurring opinion by Zahra and Viviano, JJ.) held that the statute requires both (1) allegation of fraud or mistake and (2) an allegation that the candidate was aggrieved by that fraud or mistake (i.e., causal harm), and that Stein’s petition merely parrots the statute without alleging how she was harmed.
- Two dissenting opinions (McCormack joined by Bernstein; Bernstein separately) argued the statute should be read to permit a petitioner to be “aggrieved” simply by alleging fraud or mistake (especially where evidence is not available), and that Stein’s general allegations met the statutory threshold.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stein) | Defendant's Argument (Bd of State Canvassers/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 168.879(1)(b) requires pleading both fraud/mistake and that the candidate was aggrieved by it | A petition need only allege that the candidate is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake; when evidence is unavailable, alleging fraud/mistake suffices to show aggrievement | Statute requires a causal allegation: the petition must allege fraud/mistake and that those errors caused the candidate to be aggrieved | Court of Appeals/concurring Justices: petition must allege both fraud/mistake and that the candidate was aggrieved on account of them; Stein failed to do so |
| Permissiveness of pleading standard: whether bare allegations suffice for the "aggrieved" element when evidence is unavailable | The statute’s lowered specificity rule for wrongdoing implies the "aggrieved" allegation can be likewise minimal; statutory text requires only an allegation | The text expressly lowers specificity only for allegations of fraud/mistake, not for the separate "aggrieved" requirement; silence cannot be read as relaxation | Held: bare allegations of fraud/mistake are allowed when evidence is unavailable, but the petition must still allege how the candidate was aggrieved |
| Proper interpretation of "aggrieved" in the recount statute (scope of harm required) | "Aggrieved" should be read in context as satisfied by alleging fraud/mistake; harm can include non-outcome effects (e.g., diminished vote-count integrity, ballot access consequences) | "Aggrieved" is a term of art meaning legal rights adversely affected; requires pleading of a loss or injury causally linked to fraud/mistake | Held by concurring Justices: "aggrieved" requires an allegation of harm/injury caused by the fraud/mistake; dissenters disagreed and would allow broader reading |
| Whether Court of Appeals’ test ("reasonable chance"/"but for" causation) is required | Stein: the Court of Appeals imported extra requirements (good-faith belief, ‘reasonable chance,’ but-for causation) not found in statute | AG/Canvassers: petition must show aggrievement sufficient to justify recount and the Board acted correctly in rejecting a petition that merely parrots statutory language | Court did not adopt full reversal; concurring Justices accepted Court of Appeals result on facts but relied on textual requirement of alleging causation; dissenters would reject the Court of Appeals’ added standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45 (statutory interpretation principle: ascertain legislative intent)
- Madugula v Taub, 496 Mich 685 (read statute as whole; context matters)
- Johnson v Recca, 492 Mich 169 (give effect to every word; avoid surplusage)
- Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich 156 (pay attention to statutory amendments for changed meaning)
- State Farm Fire & Cas Co v Old Republic Ins Co, 466 Mich 142 (avoid interpretations rendering statute surplusage)
- Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230 (use statute language to discern legislative intent)
- People v Thompson, 477 Mich 146 (use dictionary meaning when term undefined)
- Wheeler v Coleman, 176 Mich 285 (recount proceedings are statutory; requirements must be observed)
- Ryan v Wayne Co Bd of Canvassers, 396 Mich 213 (noncompliance with statutory recount requirements precludes recount)
- Kennedy v Bd of State Canvassers, 127 Mich App 493 (discusses sufficiency of bare allegations of fraud/mistake)