OF THE
TIMES

While the state's highest court ruled to deny the appeal and disagreed with the lawsuit's premise that an audit should take place before certification, it acknowledged in an order (pdf) the presence of "troubling and serious allegations of fraud and irregularities." It also noted that the plaintiffs presented evidence to substantiate their allegations, including in support of claims that ballots were counted from voters whose names were not on poll books and that instructions were given by elections officials to "disobey election laws and regulations."Over in Pennsylvania, a legislative committee rejected a House of Reps request for a risk-limiting audit. Now why would they go and do such a thing?
In an opinion, the two judges then called for "the most expedited consideration possible of the remaining issues," adding that a trial court should "meaningfully assess" plaintiffs' allegations by way of an evidentiary hearing and resolve any related legal issues.
"I am cognizant that many Americans believe that plaintiffs' claims of electoral fraud and misconduct are frivolous and obstructive, but I am equally cognizant that many Americans are of the view that the 2020 election was not fully free and fair," wrote Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman, with Justice Brian Zahra joining him in the opinion. They called the latter view one that "strikes at the core of concerns about this election's lack of both 'accuracy' and 'integrity.'"
...
The above claims were initially laid out in a lawsuit filed on Nov. 8 by Republican poll watchers, Cheryl Costantino and Edward McCall, against Detroit and Wayne County officials. Their complaint (pdf) claimed election workers counted ballots from voters not listed on the qualified voter file and that, when a voter's name could not be confirmed, random names were picked from the list. They also alleged election workers removed Republican vote challengers from Detroit's TCF Center when they raised objections and that poll workers were told by election officials to not verify signatures on absentee ballots and to process them even if they were invalid.
...
While denying Costantino and McCall's calls to halt the audit, the Michigan Supreme Court said its decision does not preclude plaintiffs from seeking a future "results audit" and that the high court would retain its appellate and superintending authority over the case to allow the case to be expedited ahead of the tight deadline for Michigan to certify electors.
"Federal law imposes tight time restrictions on Michigan's certification of our electors," the judges wrote. "Plaintiffs should not have to file appeals following our standards processes and procedures to obtain a final answer from this Court on such weighty issues."
"We have identified over 150,000 potentially fraudulent ballots in Wisconsin, more than enough to call into question the validity of the state's reported election results, " said Phill Kline, director of the project, in a statement.They utilized the Braynard team's research to conclude the following:
"Moreover, these discrepancies were a direct result of Wisconsin election officials' willful violation of state law," he added.
According to unofficial results in the state, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden beat President Donald Trump by about 20,000 votes.
The group said it found that more than 10,000 Republican ballots weren't counted; more than 10,000 GOP voters who had their ballots requested and filled in by another person; and around 100,000 illegal ballots that were counted anyway.
The 45-page filing asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to block the certification of election results because of the alleged irregularities.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission didn't respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuit details a series of alleged illegal actions taken by Wisconsin officials that led to significant numbers of improper votes being counted. One example is not enforcing state laws that require voters to present photo identification when requesting an absentee, or mail-in, ballot. The only exceptions are for voters who are hospitalized or "indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness, or infirmity."


Comment: The general consensus among law enforcement about these orders is that they are NOT law and not enforceable. Plus, they probably have better things to do: Law enforcement across the US overwhelmingly REFUSING to enforce COVID orders - Will the public follow?