one race in each audited precinct. Although Plaintiffs may not care for the wording of the current MCL 168.31a, a results audit has been approved by the Legislature. Any amendment to MCL 168.31a is a question for the voice of the people through the legislature rather than action by the Court.
It would be an unprecedented exercise of judicial activism for this Court to stop the certification process of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers. The Court cannot defy a legislatively crafted process, substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature, and appoint an independent auditor because of an unwieldly process. In addition to being an unwarranted intrusion on the authority of the Legislature, such an audit would require the rest of the County and State to wait on the results. Remedies are provided to the Plaintiffs. Any unhappiness with MCL 168.31a calls for legislative action rather than judicial intervention.
As stated above, Plaintiffs have multiple remedies at law. Plaintiffs are free to petition the Wayne County Board of Canvassers who are responsible for certifying the votes. (MCL 168.801 and 168.821 et seq.) Fraud claims can be brought to the Board of Canvassers, a panel that consists of two Republicans and two Democrats. If dissatisfied with the results, Plaintiffs also can avail themselves of the legal remedy of a recount and a Secretary of State audit pursuant to MCL 168.31a.
Plaintiff's petition for injunctive relief and for a protective order is not required at this time in light of the legal remedy found at 52 USC § 20701 and Michigan's General Schedule #23—Election Records, Item Number 306, which imposes a statutory obligation to preserve all federal ballots for 22 months after the election.
In assessing the petition for injunctive relief, the Court must determine whether there will be harm to the Plaintiff is the injunction is not granted, as Plaintiffs' existing legal
11
