the assertion of mootness hinges on the certification of results by the michigan state board of canvassers. this reasoning deliberately obscures the fact that certification itself was contested, making it a flawed basis for declaring the case moot. the majority opinion weaponizes procedural finality to shield the certification process from scrutiny, effectively closing the door on any meaningful investigation into fraud allegations. > "meter, j., would grant leave to appeal in each case, with the direction that the clerk draw a random 3-judge panel to decide the cases within 3 days of filing of these orders, without oral argument." judge meter's dissent offers a stark contrast to the majority's dismissive tone. by advocating for a thorough yet expedited review, meter acknowledges the gravity of the plaintiff's claims and the publics need for transparency. his proposal for a random three-judge panel underscores his commitment to impartiality, a principle glaringly absent from the majority opinion. > "the issue of mootness is more than the 'elephant in the room.' the issues are not moot because state electors have not yet been seated, the electoral college has not yet been assembled, and congress has not yet convened to consider whether to exercise its powers under art. 2, sec. 1 and am 20." judge meter rightly challenges the majority's invocation of mootness, pointing out that critical constitutional processes were still ongoing at the time of the decision. this dissent exposes the majority's premature dismissal as a politically motivated effort to foreclose further inquiry, effectively silencing concerns about election integrity.
United States