there are a handful of boxes that they have to make sure our checked. and that is it. they look at things like font size and they look at things like the size of the page. and things that are not really the kind of determinations that a court would normally make. these are just routine functions to make sure that the ballot proposal looks the way that it is supposed to look and at the bureau of elections has recommended this. and then they check those boxes. then it moves on and goes to the ballot. it is not intended, for the purpose of which the board of canvassers has been used, for this ballot proposal and another one as well that received well over the requisite number of signatures. and that is to decide whether you like the ballot proposal or not and to come up with ways to obstruct the will of the people and the many hundreds of thousands of people that sign on to these ballots proposals, so that it can be voted on.
proposal, want to take it to the courts, and make that their ballot argument, but they are free to do so. but this is not the job of the board of canvassers and it concerns me that from now on this board will be used from for one reason and one reason only and that is to obstruct the ballots proposals and also the candidacies of that which they do not want to appear on the ballot. and it is a real concern. okay, i don t want to be too hyperbolic here but it just seems to me like this is precisely the kind of nightmare scenario we have been warning about. back in 2020 we saw that the way that elections are administered all throughout this country, from the wayne county canvassing board to the board of canvassers in michigan, to maricopa county board of elections, is a lot of officials, often not well-known, sometimes appointed and not elected, sometimes party officials basically, just acting in good faith to ratify the will of voters. they are to make sure that their, like was not a
so, there is sensible objection here was attacks basing and there was there was some disagreement when it look like we did, about what it looked like electronically, it was actually fine electronically. but your contention, from what i have seen, is that this is heavily pretextual. republicans don t want abortion on the ballot in the fall because they think they will lose and i think it will boost turnout. is that your contention? that this is pretext? oh, absolutely. and in fact, i am going to be filing an amicus brief on the half of the proponents of the reproductive freedom for all ballot proposal because i feel so strongly about it. but yeah, there is no legitimate reason for this to have been left off. and even if those two republicans on the board believe it to be true that there is a spacing issue, that still is not within their ballot bailliwick or make sure that this basing is efficient. that is not their job. those who oppose this ballot
humorous, but of course for a long time, we are the republicans say, take this back to the states. yep. let the states decide. well, it s an art state. now the voters have clearly indicated that one is on the ballot. they want an opportunity to vote on it. and how the republicans are saying, well, we didn t really mean. at what we meant was that we did not want to do it all. i think that this ballot proposal will make the ballot. i think that when the supreme court evaluate this they will see that this is a ridiculous reason to keep it off. it will appear on the ballot in november and i think it will win with resounding numbers perhaps at a higher percentage that we have ever seen before for any ballot proposal. it is that popular. michigan, michigan attorney general dana nessel, thank you so much, this is all in, alex wagner tonight starts right, now good evening alex i owe you 22 seconds next week, i promise i will make it up. ds ni will get the back from, chris. 750,000 sign
thankfully, we had a judge in the open county circuit court the preached that the lives of pregnant women matter in our state. what is the fico from here? what is the next stage? republicans are clearly vowing to appeal this decision. where do you see it going? it was really interesting what judge cunningham said in his opinion. what he said was that he would put off a trial in this matter until after the november election. the reason he was doing that is because we have a ballot proposal that will likely be on the ballot this november, specifically that creates a constitutional right in michigan for all kinds of health care that are related to this issue. so not just abortion care but the handling of miscarriages, birth control and fertility treatments. the judge just put it all out