Tresa Baldas, and Frank Witsil

Detroit Free Press

Michigan Republicans and pro-recount advocates went at it again in federal court this morning, one side pushing for the recount to end and to save taxpayers millions, the other arguing it needs to continue so that voters can know if fraud took place.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith, who heard the arguments, said he would issue a written decision. He did not say when.

Two key questions that emerged at the hearing: Is the Michigan recount an issue for the federal court, which has so far let the recount go forward, or the state courts, to decide? And can Green Party candidate Jill Stein -- a candidate who has virtually no possibility of winning the presidency -- request a recount under state law?

The Michigan Republican Party and Michigan Attorney Genera'ls Office argued the Michigan Court of Appeals has already decided this issue and that the federal courts should and must respect that decision. Specifically, they said, the appeals court held that Stein, who took 1% of the vote and came in fourth place, had no standing to seek a recount, because she is not an aggrieved party and had no chance at winning.

They also argued the recount is unfairly costing taxpayers too much money: by one estimate, $500,000 a day.

"Don't become the first federal court in the country to order a recount ... for a candidate who lost by 2 million votes," argued attorney John Bursh, who is representing the Michigan Attorney General's Office.

Bursh argued that the goal of the recount law is for an aggrieved party to change the outcome of an election, not to see if there is a problem.

"Her entire purpose is to audit the Michigan system," Bursh said.

But Stein's lawyers argued a recount is needed in order to figure out if something did go wrong. And that the issue has not yet been finalized in the state courts because they plan to pursue further appeals, including one pending before the Michigan State Supreme Court, which has not yet weighed in on the issue.

"The state court decision is not final," attorney Hayley Horowitz argued on behalf of Stein. "There is no way to know whether fraud occurred without conducting the recount."

Horowitz argued that a recount can raise "clear flags " if something went wrong and then trigger a forensic audit. So far, she told the Free Press, the recount appears to be raising legitimate concerns about Michigan's election process.

"It is revealing some really troubling aspects of how elections are run here, particularly in low income communities involving minorities. It seems that voting machines are more outdated in those communities and election officials are sloppier with how they maintain ballots and follow procedure," Horowitz said. "We think that's part of the reason the recount should continue -- to continue revealing those problems so the people of Michigan can see how their election operates."

Horowitz also has noted that a recount might not change whether Stein won, but it could tilt the election to another candidate: Hillary Clinton, who lost by only10,704 votes a tiny fraction of the total number of Michigan voters.

Recount opponents have argued that Stein is a front for Clinton, and that she has no standing to fight Clinton's battles. Horowitz said Stein has no ties to Clinton, and that she "has no personal interest in seeing Hillary Clinton elected," only in making sure she participated in an election that wasn't tainted.

Horowitz also urged Goldsmith to be skeptical about the state's cost estimates for the recount, arguing neither the state secretary of state nor Republicans want the recount, so he shouldn't trust the figures they are throwing out.

Election attorney John Pirich, who testified for the Republicans, said at the hearing the recount so far has shown no major discrepancies. For example, he said, out of recounts in 10 counties, 66 votes were changed between Clinton and Trump. But he did note that more than half the precincts in the city of Detroit would not be recounted due to problems. He didn't elaborate on why. But overall, he said, it appears Michigan's election process ran smoothly in the presidential election.

"I have not known of anyone to come in and say, 'I believe the system has been compromised or hacked,' " Pirich said.

Goldsmith had ordered the recount to begin Monday, two days before state officials had scheduled it to start.

His decision to start an immediate recount was upheld by a 3-judge panel with the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals late Tuesday.

But moments later, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a 3-0 opinion said the recount never should have started because the person requesting it — Green Party candidate Jill Stein — had no chance of winning with her 1% of the total vote, and was therefore not a qualified aggrieved party under state law.

President-elect Donald Trump and the Michigan Republican Party have argued that point all along — that Stein has no standing to request a recount. Recount opponents also have argued that the recount is unfairly costing Michigan taxpayers “nearly $1 million per day,” and that this is an issue for the state courts to decide, not federal courts.

In issuing an immediate recount, Goldsmith concluded that Stein and Michigan voters would have suffered "irreparable harm" if the recount was not started quickly enough to get it completed before a Dec. 13 federal deadline to guarantee Michigan's 16 electoral votes are counted.

Meanwhile, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers met in Lansing today.

Last Friday, the board deadlocked 2-2 on Trump's objection to Stein's request for a recount, which allowed the hand recount to move forward. But the Michigan Court of Appeals now says the board erred in its decision.

The board of state canvassers has previously noted that Michigan's electors already have been certified and their names have been sent to Washington.

In addition to Michigan, Stein is also seeking recounts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — battleground states that have voted Democratic in recent elections but shifted to Republican in 2016. If recounts resulted in all three states flipping to Democrat Hillary Clinton from Trump, Clinton would win the presidency.

Stein has said she doesn’t expect to change the election outcome, but wants to test the integrity of voting systems.

No matter what Goldsmith decides today, the case is headed for more appeals.

Tresa Baldas can be contacted at tbaldas@freepress.com. Follow her on Twitter @Tbaldas