[JURIST] The Michigan Court of Appeals [official website] ruled [pinion, PDF] Tuesday that Jill Stein’s request for a recount of the presidential election votes is unlawful and should have been denied. The court cited a state law (MCL 168.879) [text] that says only an “aggrieved candidate,” one who has a chance of winning the election if the ballots were miscounted, can request a recount. Since Stein only received about 1 percent of the vote, the court found that she does not qualify as an aggrieved candidate. However, earlier this week Judge Mark Goldsmith [official website] of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan [official website] ruled that the recount should proceed [JURIST report]. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] upheld [opinion, PDF] Goldsmith’s ruling, but stated that if the Michigan courts determined the recount violates state law, the it expects the lower court to “entertain any properly filed motions to dissolve or modify its order in this case.” Goldsmith will reconsider [Detroit News report] his earlier decision in a hearing this week.

Stein is also continuing to press for a recount [JURIST report] in Pennsylvania by filing a suit against election officials in federal court earlier this week. A recount in Wisconsin began last week at Stein’s request, during which each individual Wisconsin county can decide [JURIST report] if they will use electronic or manual means to recount. The need for the electoral college was recently called into question [JURIST report] by US Representative Steve Cohen, a democrat from Tennessee. In November a lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign announced [JURIST report] support for the recount in Wisconsin and promised to look into allegations of voter fraud.