Trump and Ostergren v Jocelyn Benson

University / Undergraduate
Modified: 12th Jan 2024
Wordcount: 425 words
Avatar

Author

Law Expert

Disclaimer: This case brief was produced by one of our law study experts as an informational resource for law students and professionals researching case law. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNix.com.

Cite This

Keywords:

Donald J. Trump and Eric Ostergren v. Jocelyn Benson, 20-000225-MZ

Facts

In the case of Donald J. Trump and Eric Ostergren v. Jocelyn Benson (20-000225-MZ), plaintiffs alleged that Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, had violated election laws during the 2020 General Election. They argued that she had dismissed statutory requirements for bipartisan observation of the counting of votes and verification of voter qualifications. Trump and Ostergren specifically alleged unobserved, partisan review of absentee voters and absence of meaningful observation of the counting board, contrary to the State election law (Michigan Department of State Bureau of Elections, 2020).

Issue

The principle issue of this case was to determine whether the Michigan Secretary of State had breached election laws by sidestepping statutory requirements of bipartisan examination of vote counting and voter qualification validation. Also under consideration was whether the lack of provision for meaningful observation of the procedures by authorized people constituted a breach.

Holding and Rule

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens held that the plaintiff's interpretive and affirmative narrative fell short of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits. That is, the arguments presented were not enough to support the claim that the Secretary of State had violated the laws. Her ruling was based on a lack of admissible evidence and lack of specificity in the claims made by the plaintiffs. In terms of the law, the court stated that all counting boards are required by MI statute to have challengers present and hence, the claim is largely speculative (Ruelas, 2020).

Disposition

Judge Stephens dismissed the lawsuit asserting that most of the plaintiff's allegations were hearsay and could not be substantiated. She also declined to issue an injunction halting the vote counting process as requested by the plaintiffs. This ruling reaffirmed the integrity and legitimacy of the vote counting process managed by Defendant Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Secretary of State (Michigan Department of State Bureau of Elections, 2020).

References

Michigan Department of State Bureau of Elections. (2020). 'Election Challengers and Poll Watchers'. Official State Document.
Ruelas, R. (2020). 'Judge discredits Trump campaign's claim on Arizona 'overvote' suit'. The Arizona Republic.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Get Academic Help Today!

Encrypted with a 256-bit secure payment provider