Donald J Trump v. Board of State Canvassers ( 2016 )

STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
SC: 154862, 154886
v COA: 335947
BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and
DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JILL STEIN,
Intervening Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
SC: 154868, 154887
v COA: 335958
BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and
DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JILL STEIN,
Intervening Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
Statement of Justice Larsen Granting Intervening Defendant-Appellant’s Motion to
Disqualify
December 8, 2016
LARSEN, J. I grant the motions to disqualify myself from participation in Attorney
General v Bd of State Canvassers (Docket Nos. 154862 and 154886) and Trump v Bd of State
Canvassers (Docket Nos. 154868 and 154887). I do not do so lightly. Justices of this Court are
obligated “to remain on any case absent good grounds for recusal.” Adair v Michigan, 474 Mich.
1027, 1040-1041 (2006) (statement by TAYLOR, C.J., and MARKMAN, J.). The citizens of
Michigan elect the Justices to resolve the complex disputes that reach the Supreme Court, and we
must not shrink from that duty. In the lower courts, a recused judge is replaced by a substitute.
In our Court, a recusal leaves the Court shorthanded and, therefore, “deprives the public and
litigants of the full collegial body that they have selected as the state’s court of last resort.” Id. at
1040. Nonetheless, I conclude that the unique circumstances of this case demand my recusal.
Before the November 8, 2016 election, now President-elect Donald J. Trump, or his
campaign, included me on a list of 21 possible nominees to fill the vacancy on the United States
Supreme Court created by the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. I did not seek
inclusion on the list, had no notice of my inclusion before its publication, and have had no
contact with the president-elect, or his campaign, regarding the vacancy. Yet the president-elect
and his surrogates have repeatedly affirmed his intention to select someone from the list to fill
the vacancy.
My appearance on the president-elect’s list and his presence as a party in these cases
creates a conflict requiring my disqualification. Accordingly, I grant the motions for
disqualification.