King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) 28 There is no reason to repeat what the Court Governor Gretchen Whitmer already has stated regarding the legal merit (@GovWhitmer), Twitter (Nov. 24 2020, of Plaintiffs' claims under the Elections, 12:04 PM), https://perma.cc/22DF-XJRY. Electors, and Equal Protection Clauses. (See ECF No. 62 at Pg ID 3324-28.) The briefs filed by the State Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants provide further detail as to why those claims, as well as Plaintiffs' Due Process and Michigan Election Code claims, are legally flawed and why Plaintiffs and their counsel knew or should have known this to be the case. Plaintiffs asked this Court to enjoin the State Defendants from sending Michigan's certified results to the Electoral College (ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 84-86); but as reported publicly, Governor Whitmer had already done so before Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit.29 Plaintiffs sought the impoundment of all voting machines in Michigan (id. at Pg ID 86); however, those machines are owned and maintained by Michigan's local governments, which are not parties to this lawsuit. Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 168.37, .37a, .794a. Plaintiffs demanded the recount of absentee ballots (ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 85), but granting such relief would have been contrary to Michigan law as the deadline for requesting and completing a recount already had passed by the time Plaintiffs filed suit. Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.879. Further, a recount may be requested only by a candidate. Id. And while Plaintiffs requested the above relief, their ultimate goal was the decertification of Michigan's presidential election results and the certification of the losing candidate as the winnerrelief not “warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2). 29 See Governor Gretchen E. Whitmer, State of Michigan: Office of the Governor, Certificate of Ascertainment of the Electors of the President and Vice President of the United States of America (Nov. 23, 2020, 5:30 PM), https://perma.cc/NWS4-9FAB; While courts do have the authority to grant injunctive relief affecting conduct related to elections, no case suggests that courts possess the authority to issue an injunction of the scope sought here. Plaintiffs' attorneys maintain that the strongest case is Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). There, however, the Supreme Court was asked neither to order a recount nor to decertify Florida's presidential election results. Instead, the Court was asked to stop a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, which infringed the State's legislatively enacted scheme. Bush, 531 U.S. at 532-33. Ultimately, the Court halted the Florida recount of the presidential election to allow the previously certified vote results to stand, id., which had declared President Bush the winner in the State.30 30 Notably, this was a recount sought by a candidate in accordance with Florida's contest provisions. Bush, 531 U.S. at 528. At the July 12 hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel pointed for the first time to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878), as supporting this Court's authority to take-it seems the attorneys are suggesting- any equitable action in connection with the 2020 presidential election. (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5335.) Apparently Throckmorton's quotation of the maxim “fraud vitiates everything” is a refrain that has been oft-repeated on social media by those who question the results of the 2020 presidential election and believe Former President Trump should be declared the winner.31, 32 (ECF No. 164-8.) The City is correct that Plaintiffs' counsel's citation to Throckmorton is puzzling, both because the case relates to a nineteenthcentury land grant and has nothing to do with election law and because the Supreme Court held that the grant could not be collaterally attacked on the basis that the judgment was procured by fraud. 98 U.S. at 68. Simply put, the case does not 23