At least in Michigan’s case, she filed on time to request a recount. Given that, I can to a certain extent why the federal judge at least said please let the recount take place on those grounds (because at least the bare bones of the law were followed in that instance).
In Pennsylvania, she failed to do the above, withdrew her petition on Saturday for an appearance today before state election officials there, did not have sufficient funds to post the bond, was already turned down by a judge in Montgomery County for a recount there due to lack of evidence. There really is not anything to suggest that she exhausted her options at the state level and that the state did anything improper on their part as to ignore the spirit/intent of their election recount laws, as to justify a federal court stepping in to tell them do the recount as in Michigan. Maybe wishful thinking on my part, but it seems she has even less of a case here than in the two other states.
I agree. PA has much better/clearer laws. MI is the crazy one. State laws don’t require a 1% vote getter to pay for the full cost of the recount? A judge is going to really have to do some legal gymnastics to rule in her favor in the PA case. Not saying it won’t happen, but it would be interesting to see the legal argument.
:: In Pennsylvania, she failed to do the above, withdrew her petition on Saturday for an appearance today before state election officials there, did not have sufficient funds to post the bond, was already turned down by a judge in Montgomery County for a recount there due to lack of evidence ::
this would be known, in the legal world, as “precedence”.
DISMISSED!