King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) ballot). It seems to the Court, then, that Plaintiffs' counsel knew or should have known that this conduct did not violate existing state law. 35 (ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 879 ¶ 15(A), 943 ¶ 190(k) (citing IIC).) with No Postmark on Ballot Envelope, ” ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 904 ¶ 96 (referencing Brunell Aff., ECF No. 6-3 at PDF Pg 3536; Spalding Aff., ECF No. 6-3 at PDF Pg 61-62; and Sherer Aff., ECF No. 6-3 at PDF Pg 126-28).) 36 (See IIC - “Additional Violations of 38 When one searches through the unindexed Michigan Election Code That Caused affidavits attached as Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs' Ineligible, Illegal or Duplicate Ballots to pleading and eventually locates these Be Counted, ” Subsection 7 - “Election affidavits, however, one finds that none of Workers Accepted Unsecured Ballots, the affiants state that ballots without without Chain of Custody, after 8:00 PM postmarks were counted. (See ECF No. 6-3 Election Day Deadline, ” ECF No. 6 at Pg at PDF Pg 35-36, 61-62, 126-28.) ID 906 ¶ 101 (referencing Meyers Aff., ECF No. 6-3 at PDF Pg 130-31).) The Amended Complaint further claims that Michigan election laws were violated because ballots that lacked postmarks were counted.37, 38 But when the Court asked Plaintiffs' attorneys whether Michigan absentee ballots must be received through U.S. mail-and therefore postmarked-to be counted, counsel went on about not being able to “rely on the Secretary of State's guidance.” (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5468.) Noticeably absent from that response, however, was an answer to the Court's question. Tellingly, when the City's counsel stated that ballots are not required to be mailed or postmarked in Michiganas they “are often handed in by hand”; “[via] boxes in front of clerk's offices by hand”; and sometimes “right across the desk in the clerk's office” (id. at Pg ID 5470)- Plaintiffs' counsel did not object to or refute this recitation of the law. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.764a (explaining that absentee ballots may be delivered “[p]ersonally to the office of the clerk, to the clerk, or to an authorized assistant of the clerk, or to a secure drop box”). 37 (ECF No. 6 at Pg. ID 879 ¶ 15(C), 942 ¶ 190(h) (citing IIC); see IIC -“Additional Violations of Michigan Election Code That Caused Ineligible, Illegal or Duplicate Ballots to Be Counted, ” Subsection 4 “Election Officials Counted Ineligible To support the allegation that Defendants “count[ed] ineligible ballots-and in many casesmultiple times, ” in violation of Michigan election law, 39 the Amended Complaint cites to several affidavits in which the affiants state that batches of ballots were repeatedly run through the vote tabulation machines40. When the Court asked whether Plaintiffs' counsel inquired as to why a stack of ballots might be run through tabulation machines more than once, Plaintiffs' counsel did not answer the Court's question and instead proclaimed that “ballots are not supposed to be put through more than once. Absolutely not. That would violate Michigan law.” (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5462.) But bafflingly, Plaintiffs' counsel did not offer a cite to the law violated, and counsel did not identify such a law in the Amended Complaint either. However, the affidavit of Christopher Thomas, Senior Advisor to the Detroit City Clerk, filed in Costantino (“Thomas Affidavit”), explained that “ballots are often fed through the high-speed reader more than once” “as a routine part of the tabulation process.” (ECF No. 78-14 at Pg ID 3772 ¶ 20.) And he detailed a myriad of reasons why this may be necessary, including “if there is a jam in the reader” or “if there is a problem ballot (e.g., stains, tears, stray markings, . . . etc.) in a stack.”41 (Id.) 39 (ECF No. 6 at Pg. ID 879 ¶ 15(B), 942 ¶ 190(g) (citing IIC).) Ballots with No Signatures or No Dates or 25