Federal judge ends Michigan presidential election recount

DETROIT, Dec. 7 (UPI) -- Late Wednesday, a federal judge in Michigan stopped a recount of the state's presidential ballots just three days after it started on the grounds it is unnecessary.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith said in a ruling that presidential candidate Jill Stein is not an "aggrieved candidate" because she had no chance of winning the election, so her lawsuit calling for a recount was baseless.

Michigan Republicans filed an appeal Monday to prevent the recount from starting, but Goldsmith said the recount could continue while he was reviewing the appeal.

Goldsmith's ruling lifts a restraining order preventing Michigan officials from halting the recount, several of whom said it was a waste of money and time.

The ruling followed a state Court of Appeals decision Tuesday which agreed with Republicans in Michigan claiming Stein is not an "aggrieved candidate" because she had no chance of winning, finishing in fourth place with 1 percent of the vote.

Stein requested a hand recount of ballots after concerns were raised about voting machines in the state. She asked that 75,000 ballots with no vote for president recorded be reviewed. She based the concern on the fact there were double no vote ballots than in the 2012 presidential election in Michigan.

Of the votes already recounted, Clinton gained 65 votes on Trump, who beat her by 10,704. Stein lost two votes. The count also revealed some precincts had improperly secured ballot boxes or vote counts in boxes did not match the counts reported for the election.

In the ruling, Goldsmith noted the overall potential vulnerability of the state's voting systems but said no evidence had been presented by Stein suggesting the vote had actually been compromised.

"Invoking a court's aid to remedy that problem in the manner plaintiffs have chosen -- seeking a recount as an audit of the election to test whether the vulnerability led to actual compromise of the voting system -- has never been endorsed by any court, and would require, at a minimum, evidence of significant fraud or mistake -- and not speculative fear of them," Goldsmith wrote. "Such evidence has not been presented here."

Stein's lawyers said they plan to immediately appeal to Michigan's Supreme Court to continue the recount in order to review irregularities in the election because "there is a real possibility the rights of voters in Michigan may have been suppressed during this election."