Waukesha County has filed its certified recount numbers with the Government Accountability Board, while Iowa County snuck in a revised set of certified numbers a bit before that point. With all 3,602 reporting units recounted, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting Justice David Prosser has beaten challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg by 7,006 votes, 310 votes less than the pre-recount 7,316-vote margin. The Associated Press (via WLUK-TV) has the totals as Proser 752,697, Kloppenburg 745,691. Final numbers from the GAB are not yet available, however; therefore, I don’t have an updated spreadsheet just yet.
The Journal Sentinel further reports that, since the GAB expects to certify the results on Monday, Kloppenburg will have until May 31 to file a judicial appeal, which will be heard by a reserve (retired or defeated for re-election) judge of Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson’s choosing. Kloppenburg’s campaign says that decision will come after they review the evidence, while Prosser’s campaign issued a statement that said it was not 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.”
The reason Iowa County revised their canvass was they were informed by the GAB that 4 ballots, all for Kloppenburg, were “improperly rejected” by the board for not having proper signatures. According to the GAB, ballots lacking proper signatures can only be rejected if either there were more ballots than voters or the issue was uncovered in absentee reconciliation. Since neither happened, Kloppenburg was awarded those 4 votes.
Revisions/extensions (9:25 pm 5/20/2011) – The GAB has released the certified Waukesha County numbers. However, I have not updated my spreadsheet after reviewing both the daily tracking spreadsheet and the various county-certified spreadsheets. In a few other counties, there are still some unexplained differences between the daily tracking spreadsheet, the county-certified spreadsheets, and the minutes from the recount, where only two of three were the same. Notably, not all of the differences were between the daily tracking spreadsheet and the minutes.
In sum, the differences don’t change Prosser’s margin of victory much. If one uses the numbers from the county-certified spreadsheets found on the county-by-county certified numbers/minutes page, Prosser’s margin of victory changes to 7,004. If one adjusts the numbers from the county-by-county certified numbers page for the instances where the canvass and minutes (where available) do not agree by substituting the numbers from the minutes (and the daily tracking spreadsheet) for the numbers on the certified spreadsheets, Proser’s margin of victory changes to 7,005.
It’s too late for me to update the spreadsheet tonight to reflect any of this. I should have it up tomorrow.
R&E part 2 (6:48 am 5/21/2011) – Typo corrected; thanks to DINORightMarie for the catch.
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.
[…] Wisconsin Supreme Court Recount – DONE! var addthis_product = 'wpp-257'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};Via No Runny Eggs. […]
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.
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?!
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.
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.
Steve – pls email me so I can email you. Tks.