LANSING, Mich. _ In light of a federal judge's ruling early Monday, state courts can't stop Michigan's presidential recount without further judicial review, two legal experts said.
State courts in Michigan can't issue an order that is inconsistent with the order U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith in Detroit issued Monday, Robert Sedler, a constitutional law expert at Wayne State University, said.
Goldsmith, after a rare Sunday hearing in federal court in Detroit, issued an order early Monday morning that said the presidential recount in Michigan must start at noon Monday and "must continue until further order of this court."
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette and U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump filed separate lawsuits in state court Friday seeking to block the recount, requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Schuette has asked for his case to be sent directly to the Michigan Supreme Court and wants a Tuesday ruling.
Sedler told the Detroit Free Press that the Michigan Supreme Court can make a ruling about state law, but since Goldsmith ordered the start and continuation of the recount based on federal constitutional law, a state law order _ even if it comes from the chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court _ can't stop the recount.
"It's all a matter of federal supremacy," Sedler said. "It's pretty basic."
In light of Goldsmith's ruling, state actors such as the Board of State canvassers, which is represented in the federal Stein recount case by attorneys from Schuette's office, must go to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals if they want to overturn Goldsmith's ruling and stop the recount, Sedler said.
Officials at Schuette's office and at the Michigan Secretary of State say they are reviewing the ruling.
Ronna Romney McDaniel, chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party, said today she is outraged by the ruling and "we will vigorously pursue any and all options available to us to overturn this ruling and to end this recount."
Another election law expert, Edward Foley of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, agreed that a federal judge's ruling on constitutional grounds takes precedence over a state court ruling. But Foley, the author of "Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States," wouldn't rule out that the Michigan Supreme Court might issue an order to halt the recount _ in conflict with Goldsmith's ruling _ if the state court felt strongly that Goldsmith had misinterpreted constitutional law.
Goldsmith's order relates to the Board of State Canvassers, so the order itself does not directly bind the Michigan Supreme Court, he said.
If there are conflicting orders, further judicial review would be needed, likely by the U.S. 6th Circuit in the first instance, he said.
Goldsmith's order appears to be an attempt to "take control of the situation" with the recount, Foley said.
