Michigan Supreme Court to review decision allowing votes received after election day to be counted

Detroit News:

The Michigan Supreme Court said Friday it would immediately consider a request from the national and Michigan Republican parties seeking to intervene in a case aimed to stop the counting of late ballots and changes to the rules governing ballot collection.

The high court will reconsider an earlier denial of intervenor status in a case regarding public money going to non-public schools and has asked for briefs on that topic by Wednesday. If granted intervenor status in that case, the Republican parties also likely would be able to intervene in the absentee ballot case.

The Supreme Court also ordered Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens to rule by Wednesday on whether or not the GOP-led Legislature could intervene in the absentee ballot case.

The GOP-requested orders stem from a Sept. 18 ruling by Stephens in which she ordered clerks to accept ballots postmarked by Nov. 2, even if they arrive within 14 days after the election. She also declared that between Oct. 30 and Nov. 3, voters could choose anyone to help them submit their absentee ballots — contrary to a Michigan law that limits the assistance to family, people in the same household, mail carriers or clerk assistants.

Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson — against whom the lawsuit had been filed — said they wouldn't appeal Stephens' decision.

Since Republicans had been barred from becoming intervenors in the case, they were left with little to no legal standing upon which they could mount an appeal.

The GOP-led Legislature asked again for intervenor status in Stephens' case a few days after her ruling.

The Republican National Committee and Michigan Republican Party filed a lawsuit Thursday asking Stephens to uphold the constitutionality of the state's ballot deadline law and harvesting ban, essentially overturning her earlier ruling.

"With no parties defending the enjoined laws, the Republican committees seek declaratory relief that the harvesting ban and ballot receipt deadline are enforceable," the Republican parties wrote in a suit filed Thursday.
...

The court should overturn the prior rulings.  Extending the deadline for counting ballots and allowing vote harvesting is a recipe for vote fraud.  By allowing this to be done after election day it allows the vote fraud operation to know how many votes they need to manufacture to overturn the results if they do not like the original results.  This type of setup was used in California to steal several House seats that went to Republicans on election day in 2018.