Page:King v. Whitmer (20-13134) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/35

 ::2. Irreparable Harm & Harm to Others Because “a finding that there is simply no likelihood of success on the merits is usually fatal[,]” ''Gonzales v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 225 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller'', 103 F.3d 1240, 1249 (6th Cir. 1997), the Court will not discuss the remaining preliminary injunction factors extensively.

As discussed, Plaintiffs fail to show that a favorable decision from the Court would redress their alleged injury. Moreover, granting Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief would greatly harm the public interest. As Defendants aptly describe, Plaintiffs’ requested injunction would “upend the statutory process for election certification and the selection of Presidential Electors. Moreover, it w[ould] disenfranchise millions of Michigan voters in favor [of] the preferences of a handful of people who [are] disappointed with the official results.” (ECF No. 31 at Pg ID 2227.)

In short, none of the remaining factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction.

'''IV. Conclusion'''

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are far from likely to succeed in this matter. In fact, this lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek—as much of that relief is beyond the power of this Court—and more about the impact of their allegations on People’s faith in the democratic