The complaint contains allegations concerning absent voter ballot drop-boxes. Plaintiffs allege that state law requires that ballot containers must be monitored by video surveillance. Plaintiff contends that election challengers must be given an opportunity to observe video of ballot drop-boxes with referencing the provision(s) of the statute that purportedly grant such access, . See MCL 168.761d(4)(c).
Plaintiffs’ emergency motion asks the Court to order all counting and processing of absentee ballots to cease until an “election inspector” from each political party is allowed to be present at every absent voter counting board, and asks that this court require the Secretary of State to order the immediate segregation of all ballots that are not being inspected and monitored as required by law. Plaintiffs argue that the Secretary of State’s failure to act has undermined the rights of all Michigan voters. While the advocate at oral argument posited the prayer for relief as one to order “meaningful access” to the ballot tabulation process, plaintiffs have asked the Court to enter a preliminary injunction to enjoin the counting of ballots. A party requesting this “extraordinary and drastic use of judicial power” must convince the Court of the necessity of the relief based on the following factors:
(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the injunction will prevail on the merits, (2) the danger that the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued, (3) the risk that the party seeking the injunction would be harmed more by the absence of an injunction than the opposing party would be by the granting of the relief, and (4) the harm to the public interest if the injunction is issued. [Davis v Detroit Fin Review Team, 296 Mich App 568, 613; 821 NW2d 896 (2012).]
As stated on the record at the November 5, 2020 hearing, plaintiffs are not entitled to the extraordinary form of emergency relief they have requested.
I. SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS
-2-
