Page:Johnson v. Benson (162286) (2020) Order.pdf/13

13 electors. Id. at 585. As it currently stands, the results of any determination made under these procedures will be binding on Congress if the determination comes at least six days before the electors meet to vote. 3 USC 5.

Why is the history relevant now? Surely, one might think, after the passage of nearly 150 years our state has adopted efficient procedures to address election disputes, especially when the presidency is at stake. In many states, this is true. In almost all, postelection contests for legislative seats are ultimately decided by the legislatures themselves, although some states have provided for preliminary determinations by the courts or independent commissions. See Douglas, Procedural Fairness in Election Contests, 88 Ind L J 1, 5-8, 24-29 (2013); see also Berdy v Buffa, 504 Mich 876, 877-879 (2019) (noting that such provisions are commonplace and holding that they only apply to postelection contests of a challenged election result). For disputed gubernatorial elections, a plurality of states have enacted legislation allowing the losing candidate to contest the election in court, either at the trial or appellate court level; others place the decision in the hands of the legislature or a nonjudicial tribunal. Procedural Fairness, 88 Ind L J at 9-20. Although only about 20 states have specific provisions for presidential-election disputes, parties often can bring these challenges under the state’s general election-contest statutes. Id. at 29-34.

Unfortunately, while the vast majority of states have adopted legislation creating a mechanism for the summary or expedited resolution of election contests, Michigan has not. Cf. Wyo Stat Ann 22-17-103 (requiring election contests to be expedited); NJ Stat Ann 19:29-5 (requiring summary proceedings); Neb Rev Stat 32-1110 (requiring summary proceedings with a hearing not later than 15 days after the “matter is at issue”). Indeed, as the controversies arising out of the 2020 general election have shown, there is rampant confusion in our state concerning the proper mechanism for contesting elections in general, and presidential elections in particular, on the basis of fraud. Much of the litigation so far this year has focused on the decisions of the canvassing boards. But “[w]e have long indicated that canvassing boards’ role is ministerial and does not involve investigating fraud.” Costantino, ___ Mich at ___; slip order at 6-7 (, J., dissenting) (collecting sources). There is simply no statutory framework for the boards to adjudicate fraud. And, strikingly, the Legislature has not, in any other statute, expressly provided a mechanism for determining disputes specific to presidential electors as envisioned in the Electoral Count Act.