Comments on: Wisconsin Supreme Court Recount – DONE!

By: PaulM

PaulM — Mon, 23 May 2011 00:53:32 +0000

Steve – pls email me so I can email you. Tks.

By: Grizz

Grizz — Sun, 22 May 2011 15:05:15 +0000

Steve,
Great work!….. and much appreciated. In my neck of the woods it’s a bit of a no man’s land when it comes to Wisconsin political news- the Twin Cities media does a poor job of covering it. You’ve done yeoman’s work.

I have a question regarding recall elections. Does the Government Accountability Board verify that signatures on recall petitions belong to people actually residing in the district for which the recall is being applied for? I came across this http://www.couleeconservatives.com/dan-kapanke/analysis-recall-petitions and found it troubling.

By: PaulM

PaulM — Sat, 21 May 2011 22:22:51 +0000

The Kloppy campaign statement says it all :

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=237076

“The recount has uncovered numerous anomalies and irregularities. Vote tallies have changed in every county. ”

GUESS what happens between now and 5/31 ? Likely ON 5/31, my guess. Late in the afternoon.

By: Trochilus

Trochilus — Sat, 21 May 2011 14:53:42 +0000

Steve,

Good work! Listen, I posted a comment in response to your earlier comments on the latest Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion thread.

Here is the specific link to my question to you — essentially, have there been any post-election public opinion polls published on Wisconsin public attitudes to the Kloppenburg insistence on a recount paid for at public expense, and do you think her real motive is to prevent or delay the re-seating of Prosser in August? She cannot honestly believe she’s ultimately going to win, can she?

I also posted a somewhat lengthy reply on the same thread to a question asked by “Connie” . . . here is what I wrote:

@Connie, you ask a very good question . . .

“Where would K obtain funding for a court battle, even presuming the objective is to delay seating Prosser?”

The answer would be, I think, dependent on the motivation of whoever is bankrolling her, especially their motivation going forward, now that she has so convincingly lost the recount, as was fully expected.

The State of Wisconsin bankrolled the overall cost of that recount, which must have irritated a significant percentage of the state’s citizens, to some extent (I would guess) regardless of party affiliation. I would also speculate (and I think justifiably) that an even higher percentage of the people of Wisconsin would be downright irritated if she now chose to initiate litigation to keep this going, ignoring what can only be termed the decisive outcome of her “taxpayer-funded” recall.

That, in a nutshell, is why I asked the question above about the somewhat curious paucity of Wisconsin-based public opinion polls during the post-election period.

I am sure both she and Justice Prosser have each had a fundraising organization in place to pay for their attorneys, other paid staff assigned to recall duties, such as communications personnel, reimbursement costs made to volunteers, and any other legitimate incidental expenditures associated with the recall to date.

I am surprised that reporters have not demanded to know who is contributing, especially to her fund, given the fact that there was virtually no chance at all of her prevailing in the recount. Why hasn’t any reporter written a story about the bankrolling of this “exercise in futility?”

I don’t know the law in Wisconsin, but in New Jersey election funds are subject to mandatory reporting requirements, and very quickly (in accordance with fixed reporting schedule requirements) become a matter of public record. We don’t elect judges here in NJ, but I would think that the reporting requirements for judges might even be (or perhaps ought to be) more stringent than for other candidates.

If, for example, a significant percentage of her contributors were outsiders, or people or organizations normally associated with Washington-based or federal candidacies, I think that would be a big story, especially if there were a suggestion that those hitherto associated with the bankrolling of, say, Barack Obama, just as an example, had suddenly taken up an inexplicable interest in helping to bankroll nonstarter recall expenses, and dilatory litigation tactics in the seating of a state Supreme Court justice in the State of Wisconsin!

So your question is certainly legitimate. And, there may be an answer out there that would be very interesting to the people of Wisconsin, as they patiently wait for JoAnne Kloppenburg to start behaving in a reasonable manner.

If the evidence suggests she is doing what she is doing essentially at the behest of manipulators behind the scenes, the people certainly deserve to know that.
________________

Steve, in conclusion, don’t you think it’s about time JoAnne Kloppenburg got a little more public exposure for her antics?!

By: DINORightMarie

DINORightMarie — Sat, 21 May 2011 11:29:10 +0000

A couple thoughts. First, about those 4 added votes: doesn’t the same reason/logic apply to the 18 nuns who were disenfranchised because their votes had no witness signatures? They only discovered it at the re-count; not a case of “…more ballots than voters or the issue was uncovered in absentee reconciliation….” I know Prosser is not going to stop the process for this, but it should be raised IMHO for future recounts (which WILL come…..Democrats don’t quit, never go away, and cheat if necessary to win).

Also, in your original paragraph:

“Kloppenburg’s campaign says that decision will come after they review the evidence, while Prosser’s campaign issued a statement that said it was warranted. Quoting from the statement, ‘As an attorney, Ms. Kloppenburg would know she has a ‘right’ to go to court, and as an attorney she should recognize it’s not the right thing do.'”

Seems that this should say: “…Prosser’s campaign issued a statement that said it was [not] warranted….” Since the quote says they have a right but should not pursue, just wondering what the original statement said.

Thanks!!! (came here via Legal Insurrection) Cheers!! Congratulations, too!!! Hope Kloppy won’t pursue, but you know those Democrats……they never resign, never concede, never do what’s right for the people.

By: Wisconsin Supreme Court Recount – DONE! | DAILY WISCONSIN

Wisconsin Supreme Court Recount – DONE! | DAILY WISCONSIN — Sat, 21 May 2011 01:02:33 +0000

[…] Wisconsin Supreme Court Recount – DONE! var addthis_product = 'wpp-257'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};Via No Runny Eggs. […]

By: PaulM

PaulM — Sat, 21 May 2011 00:52:43 +0000

I doubt even Abrahamson can find a judge willing to throw out enough bags of votes, focused on Waukesha, to give it to Kloppy. Not that she won’t try to look for one.

But Kloppy might have another strategy – to claim that so many ‘irregularities were found in so many wards’, even though just one vote here and 2 votes there, that ‘the entire election is in doubt, and should be done over from scratch’. And it might have to go to SCOTUS before THAT one gets shot down.