I present the full article here so people don't even have to click a link to see the reasoning presented by both sides. Given that a RINO flipped to be the deciding denying vote, it's important to read what her "reasoning" was, and the counter arguments.
The majority voted to not hear the evidence. smh.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/09/michigan-supreme-court-election-fraud-case/3867388001/Michigan Supreme Court, in 4-3 decision, refuses to hear election fraud casePaul Egan
Detroit Free Press
LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, denied requests from two voters who backed President Donald Trump and sought an election audit and other actions to address alleged fraud related to absentee ballots.
Angelic Johnson and Linda Lee Tarver, both members of Black Voices for Trump, petitioned the state Supreme Court directly on Nov. 26. They sought a range of court actions, in addition to an audit, including: a declaration that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson had violated their constitutional rights; seizure of ballots, ballot boxes and poll books; appointment of a special master or legislative committee to investigate claims of fraud related to the counting of absentee ballots at the TCF Center in Detroit, and an injunction preventing Gov. Gretchen Whitmer from certifying Michigan's presidential election results, which has already happened.
The three Democratic-nominated justices — Chief Justice Bridget McCormack and Justices Richard Bernstein and Megan Cavanagh — were joined by Republican nominee Elizabeth Clement in denying the requested actions
without first hearing oral arguments.Justices Brian Zahra, David Viviano and Stephen Markman dissented, saying the court should call for additional briefings and oral arguments and hear the case fully on an expedited basis.
Clement, in concurring with the majority on the court, wrote that some areas of Michigan law remain unsettled surrounding elections, audits and what actions can be taken by those who believe a statewide presidential election has been wrongly decided.
However, "this court routinely chooses not to hear cases which raise interesting and unsettled legal questions in the abstract
when we conclude the case would be a poor practical vehicle for addressing those questions — which is my view of this case and these questions," Clement wrote.
"Moreover, I believe it would be
irresponsible to continue holding out the possibility of a judicial solution to a dispute that it appears must be resolved politically."
Clement also cited problems with the way the case was presented to the court, saying "it is not entirely clear exactly what the nature of petitioners’ complaint even is," and that due to constitutional separation of powers, the court would never entertain a request to appoint a committee of the Legislature.
Zahra, in a dissent that was joined by Markman, said Johnson and Tarver "have presented a significant constitutional question pertaining to the process and scope of the constitutional right to an election audit," which should be properly heard.
Viviano, in a separate dissent that was also joined by Markman, said he wanted to "highlight the lack of clarity in our law regarding the procedure to adjudicate claims of fraud in the election of presidential electors," and even urged the Legislature to address that lack of clarity.
"By closing the courthouse door on these petitioners, the court today denies them any ability to have their claims fully considered by the judiciary," Viviano wrote.
"I believe it is incumbent upon the court, in these circumstances, to provide guidance so that, no matter the outcome, the people are able to understand and exercise their constitutional rights in an effective and meaningful manner."
The Michigan Supreme Court did not explore the merits or deficiencies of the petitioners' claims about alleged fraud related to absentee ballots or the counting of those ballots at the TCF Center in Detroit, but similar claims have been rejected by other Michigan courts at both the state and federal level.