Page:Costantino v. City of Detroit (audit) (20-014780-AW) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/5

 random sample of precincts throughout the county. Id. Each audited precinct shall include a results audit of a statewide race or ballot question. Id. The audit does not constitute a recount of the vote. Id. When considering Plaintiffs’ motion for an audit, the Court considered the information provided by all parties. The Court notes the December 2, 2020 press release by the Michigan Bureau of Elections that indicates the Secretary of State will conduct a risk-limited audit. The Secretary describes the scheduled audit as “the gold standard in validating election results.” Plaintiffs do not contest that the Secretary of State has exercised her discretion to conduct the audit as provided by MCL 168.31a (1)168.31a(1) [sic].

In reviewing the present motion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request for the audit of the November 3, 2020 general election should properly be directed to the Michigan Secretary of State. MCL 168.31a (1)168.31a(1) [sic]. This Court finds no legal authority that permits the Wayne County Clerk to conduct an audit of Wayne County election results or that separates the audit from the oversight of the Secretary of State. In light of the statutory authority establishing the procedure to implement the constitutional right to an election audit, it appears to this Court that Plaintiffs’ motion should be filed before the Court of Claims pursuant to MCL 600.6419 requesting mandamus relief.

In conclusion, the Court recognizes Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to an audit. This Court concludes that the Michigan Secretary of State is the one of carry out that audit pursuant to MCL 168.31a. Since the Secretary of State has made a public commitment to do an audit of the Wayne County vote, Plaintiffs’ motion for the audit is premature. If the Secretary of State were not to comply with the audit right asserted by Plaintiffs, they could file a mandamus petition with the Michigan Court of Claims.