Finally, the Court examines Count IV of the complaint, which concerns plaintiffs’ request for an audit....Plaintiffs acknowledge that an audit of the November 2020 general election results was conducted. They argue that they have the right to request an audit with respect to the subject of their choosing signatures on absent voter ballot applications and on absent voter ballots—and in the manner of their choosing. For at least two reasons this claim is not supported by art 2, § 4 or the implementing statute, MCL 168.31a. First, the constitution speaks of an audit of election results, not signature-matching procedures. Second, while the statute allows for an audit that includes “reviewing the documents, ballots, and procedures” used in the election, the statute plainly leaves it to the Secretary of State to “prescribe the procedures for election audits” and mandates that the Secretary of State shall conduct audits “as set forth in the prescribed procedures. ”In other words, there is no support in the statute for plaintiffs to demand that an audit cover the subject of their choosing or to dictate the manner in which an audit is conducted. MCL 168.31a(2) leaves that to the Secretary of State. As a result, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted as it concerns Count IV, and this count will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8).
“Well, we double-checked the results and a winner was declared! Another successful audit!”