Page:Costantino v. City of Detroit (20-014780-AW) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/10

 On November 2, 3, and 4, 2020, Mr. Thomas worked at the TCF Center absent voter counting boards primarily as a liaison with Challenger Organizations and Parties. Mr. Thomas indicated that he "provided answers to questions about processes at the counting board's resolved dispute about process and directed leadership of each organization of party to adhere to Michigan Election Law and Secretary of State procedures concerning the rights and responsibilities of challengers."

Additionally, Mr. Thomas resolved disputes about the processes and satisfactorily reduced the number of challenges raised at the TCF Center.

In determining whether injunctive relief is required, the Court must also determine whether the Plaintiffs sustained their burden of establishing they would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not granted. Irreparable harm does not exist if there is a legal remedy provided to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs contend they need injunctive relief to obtain a results audit under Michigan Constitution Article 2, § IV, Paragraph 1 (h)1(h) [sic] which states in part "the right to have the results of statewide elections audited, in such as manner as prescribed by law, to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the law of elections." Article 2, § IV, was passed by the voters of the stateState [sic] of Michigan in November, [sic] 2018.

A question for the Court is whether the phrase "in such as manner as prescribed by law" requires the Court to fashion a remedy by independently appointing an auditor to examine the votes from the November 3, 2020 election before any County certification of votes or whether there is another manner "as prescribed by law".

Following the adoption of the amended Article 2, § IV, the Michigan Legislature amended MCL 168.31a effective December 28, 2018. MCL 168.31a provides for the Secretary of State and appropriate county clerks to conduct a results audit of at least