Conservative Byte

A Michigan court rules that Jill Stein basically has no standing to demand a recount. The court says that there is no way she can be an aggrieved party. Makes sense to me. A Federal court, on the other hand, ruled for the recount to continue based on another case. Why is the Federal court involved in what is a matter for the State of Michigan?

As Written By Anna Giraitelli for the Washington Examiner:

The Michigan Court of Appeals ordered the state’s Board of State Canvassers on Tuesday to “reject the Nov. 30, 2016 petition of former presidential candidate Jill Stein that precipitated the current recount process.” At about the same time, a higher court seemed to be saying, let the recounts roll.

In its statement, the Michigan court ruled that the Green Party candidate’s recount lawsuit should never have been allowed to proceed because she was not a top finisher in the race and there was no way to overturn the election result. Republican officials praised the court’s Tuesday decision.

“The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, determining that the petition for recount filed by Dr. Jill Stein should have been denied,” Ronna Romney McDaniel, chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party, said in a statement. “Dr. Stein is not an aggrieved candidate as she has no chance of winning the election in Michigan.”…..

FULL STORY HERE:

MICHIGAN COURT SHOOTS DOWN RECOUNT REQUEST, BUT IT’S NOT OVER YET | WASHINGTON EXAMINER