Jill Stein’s doomed effort to overturn the result of this year’s presidential election via recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania has fizzled out. The only state where a recount has actually taken place is Wisconsin, where the recount, now complete, added 162 votes to Trump’s victory total. In Michigan, the Supreme Court voted 3-2 to kill Stein’s attempt to compel a recount. The Supreme Court agreed with a lower appellate court that Stein was not an “aggrieved party” under Michigan law, since there was no conceivable way she could have carried the state.
The most brutal finish came today in Pennsylvania, where federal judge Paul Diamond denied Stein’s motion to force a recount with a scathing opinion that you can read here. The opinion, worth reading in its entirety, begins:
Unsuccessful Green Party Candidate Jill Stein and Pennsylvania voter Randall Reitz allege that because Pennsylvania’s voting machines might have been “hacked” during last month’s election, I must order the Commonwealth to conduct a recount of the votes cast for President. There are at least six separate grounds requiring me to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion. Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any “hack” occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania’s voting system was not in any way compromised. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ lack of standing, the likely absence of federal jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs’ unexplained, highly prejudicial delay in seeking a recount are all fatal to their claims for immediate relief. Further, Plaintiffs have not met any of the requirements for the issuance of a mandatory emergency injunction. Finally, granting the relief Plaintiffs seek would make it impossible for the Commonwealth to certify its Presidential Electors by December 13 (as required by federal law), thus inexcusably disenfranchising some six million Pennsylvania voters. For all these reasons, I am compelled to refuse Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.
Ouch. Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton, who supported the recount attempt, should be embarrassed if they are not, at this point, beyond embarrassment.
Thus does one aspect of the Democratic Party’s post-election freakout come to an ignominious end.