Hmmm... What's This? Wisconsin Agency Sues Over Supreme Court Election Recount

[eowyn_of_rohan]

April 21, 2011, 3:52 PM EDT
(Bloomberg) -- The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board asked a judge to allow the use of electronic voting memory cartridges to speed the recount in a contested Supreme Court election, even if that use might erase the voting data.

The nonpartisan agency filed the lawsuit today in state court in Madison, naming as defendants incumbent Supreme Court Justice David T. Prosser Jr. and his challenger, JoAnne Kloppenburg.

Kloppenburg yesterday asked election officials for a statewide recount after a review of the April 5 election results showed Prosser had won by 7,316 votes out of almost 1.5 million ballots cast.

...While the Supreme Court contest is nonpartisan, Prosser previously served a Republican speaker of Wisconsin’s lower legislative house, the state Assembly.

Allowing counties to re-tabulate votes using the erasable memory cartridges “will allow for a timely and accurate recount that will give effect to the will of the electors,” according to the complaint filed by the office of State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.

...The case is In the Matter of the Recount of Votes for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, 11cv1863, Dane County, Wisconsin Circuit Court (Madison).

[DJ13]

1. erase the voting data and replace it with data that coincides with the fraud

What a con game.

[tsuki]

2. Is Van Hollen the one that won due to the "mistake" in Waukasha County? nt

[nebenaube]

5. No but there is

some strange stuff with his election back in the day...

[eowyn_of_rohan]

15. there were 20,000 overvotes in that county for the Atty General

in 2006. Of course I am sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it :eyes:

[Webster Green]

3. Say what?

:tinfoilhat:

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. 'might' as 'in 'might, if an incompetent or fraudulent person uses them'?

Or 'because any attempt to use them could erase them, because they're not designed to be read again'?

Either way, it seems a dodgy situation. It seems to me a hand recount is needed at this stage - the machine count did not produce reliable totals.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Explanation, and agreement between the candidates:

Representatives for JoAnne Kloppenburg and Justice David Prosser have made a rare recount agreement. Part of the state will be recounted by hand--the other by machine. Thirty-one counties will have a hand recount--to avoid erasing data on voting machines. The deal includes 34 municipalities in Waukesha County. For the rest of the state, a machine recount will be used.

http://www.nbc26.com/Global/story.asp?S=14493850

It'd still be more like an accountable democracy if everything was recounted by hand.

[Botany]

7. "to speed the recount"

No fucking way every vote needs to be checked against a hard copy i.e. number of voters signed in the poll logs = # of votes recorded ....
and the VVPAT (voter verified paper trail) needs to be checked too. No fucking way this needs to be rushed through.


Allowing counties to re-tabulate votes using the erasable memory cartridges “will allow for a timely and accurate recount that will
give effect to the will of the electors,” according to the complaint filed by the office of State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. :puke:

I have years of election protection and election work in Ohio they DO NOT HAVE TO RE-TABULATE THE VOTES what they need to do is make
sure the first tabulation was accurate.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

16. YES- You are absolutely right

"they DO NOT HAVE TO RE-TABULATE THE VOTES what they need to do is make sure the first tabulation was accurate. "

That can ONLY mean a hand count at this point. Would you agree?

This must be a painful deja vu for an Ohioan who does election work...

[Botany]

23. I might be wrong but ...

to speed the recount we have to use a method that might dump the raw vote
data is pure horseshit.

The important thing is to make sure the count is accurate not that it is done quickly.

Bottom line Nickolaus lied on more than one point about the 2011 vote in Waukesha County
and why did she need to lie?

BTW Ohio 2004 never had an accurate recount ... the whole thing was rigged from the get go.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

25. I'm beginning to wonder about this one

and I can hardly bear it...

[Ellipsis]

8. You what's fucked up about his premise? The new judge doesn't take office until August.

The recount will well be over by then... and the expense angle just doesn't cut it.

Smart move on Kloppenburg to get at least a partial recount.

[robinlynne]

9. wow. they dont even try to hide it anymore.

[Botany]

11. I might be wrong but the idea that they need to ...

.... speed things along in a manner that might erase the voting data does not pass the smell test to me.

[robinlynne]

29. of course not!!!! But it is so BLATANT now. They dont even bother to hide the eleciton fraud

because they have been getting away with it for so long.

[PufPuf23]

10. The obvious position of an oversight Agency is to for a transparent and

most thorough (hand counting) solution to defend their own integrity.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

12. This is our Government Accountability Board suing to obtain speed over integrity of the recount

I'm dumbfounded.

[Scuba]

13. They need to hand count all 72 counties. n/t

[Ellipsis]

19. Let them count the 31 first.. they'll find enough disparity to get them all recounted by hand.

[Scuba]

20. I keep trying to remind myself that JoAnne has an experienced attorney among her advisors. n/t

[eowyn_of_rohan]

26. Yes, and that she has some excellent attorneys behing her. -nt

[Ellipsis]

14. You would think they would read the statutes before bringing suit, seems pretty clear to me.

7.23(2)
(2) If a recount is pending or if the time allowed for filing a recount petition at any election or an appeal or petition for review of any recount determination or decision at an election has not expired, no materials may be destroyed until after the recount is completed and the applicable time period has expired. In addition, if there is litigation pending with respect to a recount at an election, materials may be destroyed and recording units or compartments may be cleared or erased only by order of the court in which litigation is pending. Upon petition of the attorney general or a district attorney or U.S. attorney for the affected jurisdiction, a circuit judge for the affected jurisdiction may order that specified materials not be destroyed or that specified recorders, units or compartments not be cleared or erased as otherwise authorized under this subsection until the court so permits.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

17. This violates GAB's own manual guidelines?

I found this in a blog online--

This would be a recount with missing materials and documents required by the GAB's own manual guidelines:

The GAB's recount manual requires:

All ballots to be recounted, contained in the original ballot bag or ballot container, (EB-101);

All paper records from direct record electronic (DRE) voting devices;

All logs of seals for electronic voting machines and tabulators;

Both copies of the original poll lists, including any supplemental voter lists;

The rejected absentee ballots, (contained in the brown carrier envelope, EB-102);

The used absentee ballot certificate-affidavit envelopes, (contained in the white carrier envelope, EB-103);

The original Inspectors’ Statement, (EB-104);

The original tally sheets, (EB-105), including the vote printouts generated by electronic voting and tabulating devices;

The original canvass report of the election results, (EB-106);

Any provisional ballot documentation, (EB-108 & EB-123);

The test deck for any electronic voting equipment;

A copy of any informational memoranda relating to the election and the recount prepared by the Government Accountability Board and sent to county and municipal clerks; and

The list of absentee ballot applications prepared by each municipal clerk pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 6.89, and all written absentee ballot application forms filed pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 6.86(1)(a).

The GAB Manual states: If these materials are not on hand when the recount is scheduled to begin, the Government Accountability Board recommends that the canvassers immediately obtain these materials before proceeding. In the event that the board of canvassers has the required materials for some, but not all the wards to be recounted at the time they are scheduled to begin the recount, the board of canvassers may begin the recount with those wards for which it has the required materials while the missing materials are being obtained.

[Ellipsis]

18. More so they would be breaking the law.

The statute is quite clear... there is nothing for the court to weigh in on.

"If a recount is pending or if the time allowed for filing a recount petition at any election or an appeal or petition for review of any recount determination or decision at an election has not expired, no materials may be destroyed until after the recount is completed and the applicable time period has expired".

Period end of discussion.

They are trying to take the next sentence and twist it to their advantage.

"In addition, if there is litigation pending with respect to a recount at an election, materials may be destroyed and recording units or compartments may be cleared or erased only by order of the court in which litigation is pending".

The interpretation I get is... after the recount, if there is pending litigation, I would think the intent being, that if the case is not resolved by the next election, they would have the option of erasing the cartridge... or whatever.

Expediency is not a concern. Nor is expediency a concern of the justice department or a matter of law. No one will be disenfranchised. The term does not start until August. The recount will be finished by then.

This is just"hinky".

[dragonlady]

21. It's all about dueling statutes

The point of the GAB's suit is that there are two mutually exclusive statutes: the one for preserving election materials, and the one mandating a machine count where optical scanners were used. The GAB asked for a judicial determination of what to do. The deal made between Prosser and Kloppenburg solved the problem and settled the case. One shouldn't read too much of a nefarious nature into this case.

[Ellipsis]

24. Ah... I get it now. Hence the compromise . I thought this came after the compromise.

Thank you for resolving that.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

27. Thank you ...I didn't realize which came first either

guess some of us are a little jumpy over this. I need some sleep...

[Blue Owl]

22. They are serious, aren't they...

How utterly telling that they depend so heavily on their electronic crutch.

[TxVietVet]

28. Van Hollen has a conflict of interest.

He won on some questionable voting tabulation. Screw him. Get his nose out of the issue. Get the FEDS involve. Voter fraud is the issue here. IT's a violation of someone's rights.

[lonestarnot]

30. So they know they cheated then egh.