Added one!
Someone wanted to stop the certification - that's the only thing this was about. They wasn't asking for an audit - just asking to stop the certification. Judges basically said "the count got certified so we won't un-certify it, but come back to court and argue your case for an audit".
Next court would not be SCOTUS; if I'm not mistaken it would be the same level of court in Michigan (or lower), but on the meat of the issue - the constitutional arguments, rather than this, which was only on the request to stop certification
Hello 2L (and you might be doing more stat interp these days than me)
Probably the biggest factor in the decision is that the question is moot since certification happened, and this was a request for an injunction to...stop certification. But that's not to dismiss your points, let me try:
"you may not audit a finding that is in progress": they say the right to an audit (should there be one) (1) is not a right for it to happen pre-certification (less than that they're saying it's an impossibility to do so); (2) the language seems to read that the audit wasn't intended to come before certification; (3) that the court feels "results" must mean "certified results" to be reasonably interpreted as anything meaningful; (4) then to back it up the three precedents they cite all come after a count has happened.. so it's less, if it matters, that you can't audit any finding that is in progress, it is that "we" (the court) don't have a "finding" until we have results and we're going to to take that to mean the end results post-certification since anything prior to that are efforts contributing to - rather than actually being - result, + we don't think anything gives you the right to stop a process to certify mid-process to certify
"no harm unless certified": I didn't see them taking the ~"you haven't been harmed yet" (or "you have been" / haven't been harmed) approach on this, but I think I see what you're saying as an explanation
As an aside (since they're dissenting), the dissenting opinion bifurcated "audit" into process-based audits ("not appear critical whether they occur before the election results are finally certified") and accuracy-based audits ("after preliminary outcomes are announced, but before official certification of election results"), saying in some sense that process-based audit finding problems might not stop certification (or therefore require an injunction), but we don't have the constitutional questions answered about which audit is the remedy
That's a reasonable example (filing then audit)
It's not really good precedent but it's nice that they denied the request while also saying that they don't have a problem with the argument itself, just that it's not for them to decide it, but go ahead and have someone decide it asap
SCOTUS is of course the end of the line, but it's never certain something gets in front of them
If the argument / problem is constitutional, rather than state-law-interpretive, then there's a reasonable path there, and this judge suggested there's a path to that argument
If it's just about how the laws of that state were interpreted, it wouldn't be nearly as likely to make it to SCOTUS, than if someone had the argument that either the laws weren't followed, or the laws or actions violated my constitutional rights
Am attorney...
Translating this into english:
Edit: adding tldr: Someone wanted to stop the certification - that's the only thing this was about. They wasn't asking for an audit - just asking to stop the certification. Judges basically said "the count got certified so we won't un-certify it, but come back to court and argue your case for an audit".
Court is not going to allow the appeal since they feel it’s not for them to decide to do that; appeal on the issue of getting the injunction to stop the certification of the vote is denied.
Plaintiffs wanted an audit and therefore wanted count not to be certified so they can have audit.
Court disagrees that a count can’t be certified before an audit.
Court in fact feels that certification must happen before an audit request is brought.
Court feels a decision here on stopping the certification is pointless because certification happened already.
Court doesn’t feel rescinding certification vote is possible.
Court feels that although they’re not deciding on stopping the vote certification, there still are some apparent issues with the votes.
Court feels there may be constitutional issues with the integrity of the vote (good, since that leads to SCOTUS).
Court feels the plaintiff in the future when arguing for a “constitutional audit” will need to explain why the “performance audit” isn’t good enough.
Court is encouraging (ordering) other court(s) to consider the vote integrity issues asap, including evidence, though this court, for this decision, isn’t going to because it’s not on their plate.
This majority opinion by judge Stephen J. Markman is agreed to by judge Brian K. Zahra.
David F. Viviano disagreed but was outvoted; so while it is useful to consider his opinion, it wasn’t what the court decided on – but, he thought that: (1) the vote shouldn’t be certified, (2) the trial judge looked at the voting regulations but didn’t consider if the constitution was being upheld, (3) pointed out the voting regulations don’t have any particular requirement for an audit, (4) didn’t give enough consideration to absentee ballots not needing identification, (5) points out an audit could be a review the election process – not only (or instead) a count of the votes, (6) thinks the decision of the Board of State Canvassers can still certify even if there is fraud, (7) points out past decision that says a party “may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election”
canadian conservatives are slightly righter than sanders