Wisconsin Supreme Court Recount – Day 8

posted at 8:00 am on May 5, 2011 by Steve Eggleston

In 71 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties, the recount is, or at least appears to be, on track for an on-time finish. With 2,717, or 75.43%, of the reporting units, and 1,044,530, or just under 70%, of the votes recounted and reviewed by Government Accountability Board staff as of 6 pm Wednesday, David Prosser has gained 271 votes from his pre-recount total, while JoAnne Kloppenburg has gained 481 from her pre-recount total. That represents a net loss of 210 votes for Prosser from his pre-recount lead of 7,316, bringing the unofficial full-state lead down to 7,106 votes.

Between those reporting units that have been recounted and reviewed and those which have been recounted but not reviewed, 61 of the 72 counties have completed their recount with just 5 days left in the statutory deadline. The GAB has created a page that contains individual county spreadsheets of the recount for those counties where results have been “certified” and, as they receive them, the minutes from the recount in those counties.

9 other counties appear to be on track, through either percentage of reporting units recounted or percentage of votes recounted, to be done by Monday. Milwaukee County, while it does not appear to be statistically possible to be done on time, is actually much further along than it appears; more than half the suburbs have been recounted, and the reason why the city of Milwaukee is currently reported as not reporting is the absentee ballots in every ward were counted at a central location on election day and thus must be counted separately from the ballots cast on election day.

That brings me to Waukesha County. As of Wednesday evening, only 10.31% of the reporting units, representing 17,549 votes, have been recounted and reviewed, with another 2,837 votes not reflected in the current GAB spreadsheet. Because the sum of those two numbers are barely 16% of the 125,070 votes canvassed by the county, and because of scrutiny not experienced by any other county including numerous challenges, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Waukesha County has asked the GAB to extend the Monday statutory deadline. If the plan wins approval in a Dane County court, Waukesha County plans on moving to a larger room once May 9th passes and doubling the tabulation staff, which would allow it to recount multiple reporting units at the same time.

In the meantime, the city of Brookfield, whose forgotten-on-election-night results are widely regarded as the major reason for the statewide recount, will have its recount started in the Waukesha County Courthouse Thursday morning. Waukesha County is providing a live-stream of their recount process, for those of you who wish to watch. I’ve heard rumblings that the rate of challenges will increase once the ballot bags for the city of Brookfield are brought into the room, and that more than the “usual” number of observers will descend on the Waukesha County Courthouse, so things could get “interesting”.

Staying with Brookfield and Waukesha County, WITI-TV reported that the first version of the spreadsheet sent by the city clerk, Kris Schmidt, to the county on election night could not be imported into the county system because of extra columns added by the city to allow it to double-check the votes. A second version was sent four minutes after Waukesha County clerk Kathy Nickoulas informed Schmidt the first one was unacceptable. The remaining mystery is why that second version was not imported into the county system on election night.

As for the type of nitpicking the Kloppenburg campaign has been doing, they successfully challenged 18 of the 24 absentee ballots in the Sauk County town of Sumpter, most of them from a convent, because they broke heavily for Pross…er, lacked witness signatures on the application. 14 of the 18 that were in the drawdown (random removal) were for Prosser, while the pre-recount canvass for the town had Kloppenburg carrying the town 96-83. The Prosser campaign, in an e-mail received by WTMJ-AM’s Charlie Sykes, claimed that the GAB has not consistently enforced the witness signature requirement, and that even after the town clerk testified that the ballots that were delivered by her to the nuns were valid, the Sauk County board of canvassers rejected the 18 ballots a second time.

I blog over at No Runny Eggs, and am on Twitter @steveegg

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

UPDATE: (Jazz) Link to the Milwaukee Journal story fixed.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

most of them from a convent, because they broke heavily for Pross…er, lacked witness signatures on the application

*shaking the head*

cmsinaz on May 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM

More Debt Ceiling jacking up,with more
wasteful spending,by Team Progressive!(sarc).

canopfor on May 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM

thanks for the updates Steve!

cmsinaz on May 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM

I inadvertantly screwed up one of the links. The correct link to the Waukesha County requests extension is this one.

Sorry about that.

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 8:07 AM

As for the type of nitpicking the Kloppenburg campaign has been doing, they successfully challenged 18 of the 24 absentee ballots in the Sauk County town of Sumpter, most of them from a convent, because they broke heavily for Pross…er, lacked witness signatures on the application.

Would it be mischievous to start proclaiming Kloppenburg as “anti-Catholic?”

Naaaaaahhhhhh

olesparkie on May 5, 2011 at 8:13 AM

Thanks for the Yeoman work Steve. This is the first thing I look at when I go to Hotair.

This is what freedom takes…..constant vigilance. (Mad Eye Moody)

itsspideyman on May 5, 2011 at 8:15 AM

That represents a net loss of 210 votes for Prosser from his pre-recount lead of 7,316, bringing the unofficial full-state lead down to 7,106 votes.

This is getting too close for comfort…

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 8:17 AM

This is getting too close for comfort…

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 8:17 AM
At the current rate of change, as long as all the votes are recounted, Prosser’s margin-of-victory would still be over 7,000 votes.

Of course, that is assuming all the votes do get counted.

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Thanks for the fix, Jazz.

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 8:22 AM

I was joking.

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 8:26 AM

The million-dollar circus, brought to you by a self absorbed liberal hack who can’t accept defeat gracefully.

Bishop on May 5, 2011 at 8:29 AM

I find it very interesting that the liberal democrapt marxists spend half their lives bloviating about not denying anyone their “vote” and having no restrictions on voting, but they hang on any technicality, including manufactured technicalities, when they can deny a conservative a vote.

Old Country Boy on May 5, 2011 at 8:32 AM

The million-dollar circus, brought to you by a self absorbed liberal hack who can’t accept defeat gracefully.

Bishop on May 5, 2011 at 8:29 AM

I think it’s more about deligitimizing results than her personal pride.

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 8:33 AM

I think it’s more about deligitimizing results than her personal pride.

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 8:33 AM

How can she do that though if the margin of victory remains almost the same after this recount? All she’s doing is p-ssing away taxpayer dollars and looking like a sore loser.

Doughboy on May 5, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Just think what our “elections” will look like when the Obamanation has his way and all the election boarda are dimocrapt marxists and the incompetant marxist Holder prosecutes people who disagree with Obama. They will impose any ukase, process, or “interpreted law” to do away with the American system. They already have their purple “brownshirts” as their political paramilitary.

Old Country Boy on May 5, 2011 at 8:37 AM

Doughboy on May 5, 2011 at 8:35 AM

I didn’t claim she was a long term, strategic thinker.

From reading most of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel posts and comment sections right after the election, there really wasn’t any belief, even among the most left wing commenters, that the election was going to be overturned. I got the sense that the left really believed they would look better at the end of a recount.

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 8:41 AM

This is getting too close for comfort…

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 8:17 AM

Hahahaha…there ARE lots of demrat trunks out there, aren’t there? lol

csdeven on May 5, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Thanks Steve. A spreadsheet failure the causes Waukesha County to exclude all votes from the City of Brookfield is a serious frailty. Aren’t there double check procedures by multiple persons (or even a foot and cross-foot comparison of totals)? On election night one team should be counting votes for each candidate, and a separate team should be counting total votes cast. I suppose the problem is that the if 100,000 registered voters come to the polls, the various votes for candidates may not add up to 100,000 because voters can decline to choose any candidate in some races. In those situations, a “none chosen” category should be tallied so the total of votes allocated to candidates can be compared to total voters at the polls.

Mark30339 on May 5, 2011 at 8:49 AM

By the way, nuns at a convent in Sumpter are being outed for voting 18-4 for Prosser. I thought it was a secret ballot. Do the sisters have to worry about visits from union thugs now?

Mark30339 on May 5, 2011 at 8:54 AM

So why is crr6 waiting to find the missing 8,000 votes? I don’t understand…

Khun Joe on May 5, 2011 at 8:57 AM

count it!

/crr6,errrr /crr7,106

NoFanofLibs on May 5, 2011 at 9:03 AM

By the way, nuns at a convent in Sumpter are being outed for voting 18-4 for Prosser. I thought it was a secret ballot. Do the sisters have to worry about visits from union thugs now?

Mark30339 on May 5, 2011 at 8:54 AM

The nuns support themselves by making Communion wafers. No doubt the unions will call for a boycott of some sort.

Wethal on May 5, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Denying nuns the vote. Wow. Way to improve your public image, Dems.

parteagirl on May 5, 2011 at 9:09 AM

How can she do that though if the margin of victory remains almost the same after this recount? All she’s doing is p-ssing away taxpayer dollars and looking like a sore loser.

Doughboy on May 5, 2011 at 8:35 AM

It just needed to trend that way for the conspiracy theory libs to have their eternal talking points. Everyone remembers how close FL was in 00. No one remembers teams of lawyers with their memo on how to discredit and void military absentee votes from the Gore Team. It would have been even closer or worse if Republican’s hadn’t had The Penny Loafer Rebellion”.

hawkdriver on May 5, 2011 at 9:13 AM

I just saw another of those awful Wisconsin fist graphics on someone’s facebook and it made me think about this quote:

“You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.”
~ Indira Gandhi

Thanks for keeping an eye on the recount process, Steve.

Fallon on May 5, 2011 at 9:15 AM

By the way, nuns at a convent in Sumpter are being outed for voting 18-4 for Prosser. I thought it was a secret ballot. Do the sisters have to worry about visits from union thugs now?

Mark30339 on May 5, 2011 at 8:54 AM

The nuns cast 18 of the 24 absentee ballots in Sumpter. Because they were absentee ballots, the sum of those were available separately from the sum of the ballots cast on election day. However, because even individual absentee ballots cannot be matched up to individual applications for same, there is a drawdown (i.e. random removal).

The reason the Kloppenburg risked the odds is because there were, in the 24 absentee ballots, at least 14 that were for Prosser. Therefore, the odds that it would hurt her campaign at least as much as it hurt Prosser’s was minimal.

What would be very interesting is if there were a similar situation involving a stack of absentee ballots that favored Kloppenburg. Something tells me that (a) it happened in this election and (b) Kloppenburg didn’t challenge it.

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 9:18 AM

What kinda nonsense they gonna pull in Waukesha?

Lanceman on May 5, 2011 at 9:20 AM

How can she do that though if the margin of victory remains almost the same after this recount? All she’s doing is p-ssing away taxpayer dollars and looking like a sore loser.

Doughboy on May 5, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Two reasons:

1) the Dems want to keep the lefty outrage high until the recall elections in July.

2) the Dems want to keep Prosser from sitting on the court after 8/1, which is when his current term expires, for as long as possible. Then he cannot vote on any appeals after 8/1 on Walker’s union bills.

3? OK, and there’s the obvious: if Kloppenburg took some kind of frivolous appeal of the recount to the WI supreme court, Prosse would have to recuse himself from hearing an appeal on his own re-election. This leaves a 3-3 split on the court. The lefty chief justice, who is a personal friend of Kloppenburg (Kloppenburg once worked fo her), would appoint a judge to sit by designation on this case. As Steve Eggelston hs warned us, she would likely appoint a way-out lefty. Then there would be 4 liberals on the court to somehow say the final vote count was invalid. (Whether the rest of the Dems would vote with the CJ to invalidate the judicial election, I don’t know. There might be one with integrity.) Until a new judicial election, you would have 3-3 on the court.

Wethal on May 5, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Wethal on May 5, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Wow, great run down. You and Steve both are doing a bang-up job in the analysis, thanks to you both.

hawkdriver on May 5, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Wethal on May 5, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Slight correction of that all-but-certain judicial appeal timeline:

- The case would go before a reserve (either a retired or defeated-for-reelection) judge appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who would hear the case without a jury. That is the appointment I am worried about; one of the eligible reserve judges is former Supreme Court justice “Loophole” Louis Butler (defeated for re-election to his appointed term in 2008 in a bitter election).
- An appeal out of that court would go to the Madison-based 4th District Court of Appeals.
- Any appeal to the State Supreme Court would be moot because, due either to Prosser recusing himself as an involved party or the vacant seat if it is after 7/31, there would be a 3-3 split on the Court.

Any grounds for the judicial theft of the election would likely trigger a federal “equal protection” claim, sending this to, eventually, a dispassionate court that has no personal stake in a particular outcome.

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Any grounds for the judicial theft of the election would likely trigger a federal “equal protection” claim, sending this to, eventually, a dispassionate court that has no personal stake in a particular outcome.

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Which would likely go well beyond August, correct?

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Which would likely go well beyond August, correct?

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Yep.

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Which would likely go well beyond August, correct?

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Check last response. The wheels of federal justice do turn a bit faster when dealing with elections (see Bush v Gore, 2000)

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 10:07 AM

As for the type of nitpicking the Kloppenburg campaign has been doing, they successfully challenged 18 of the 24 absentee ballots in the Sauk County town of Sumpter, most of them from a convent, because they broke heavily for Pross…er, lacked witness signatures on the application.

“All votes must be counted.

That is, unless they are votes for my opponent.”

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Check last response. The wheels of federal justice do turn a bit faster when dealing with elections (see Bush v Gore, 2000)

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 10:07 AM

The 4th district court would have an incentive to slow things down as much as possible, just like judge Sumi pushing a deadline all the out to late may on the budget repair bill.

But I honestly have no idea how long the various hearing would take, which is why I asked.

BadgerHawk on May 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Yet, there’s no question she’d be a fair and disinterested justice.

Pablo Snooze on May 5, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Unlike atheists, nuns have to vote in person to have their votes count.

unclesmrgol on May 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM

The Dims are disenfranchising *nuns*? Good lord, the ad writes itself!

edshepp on May 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Observers for Assistant Attorney Gen. JoAnne Kloppenburg objected this morning to the security of bags holding Supreme Court ballots from the City of Brookfield because of a gap opening on the ballot bags. Similar objections have been raised four to five times in Waukesha County since the start of recount, but retired Circuit Court Judge Robert Mawdsley agreed that this was the widest opening. Votes are being counted but objection is on the record.

Mawdsley is overseeing the recount in Waukesha County after County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus recused herself amid controversy over restated vote totals in the county that swung the statewide results from a slight lead for Kloppenburg to a wider lead of more than 7,000 votes for Justice David Prosser. It was the votes from the City of Brookfield that were initially omitted from the county’s vote report.

Kloppenburg subsequently requested a statewide recount.

Mawdsley has informed the Government Accountability Board that the hand recount in Waukesha County would not be completed by the May 9 deadline

jsonline as of 10:45 today.

It looks as if they may try to keep all the Brookfield ballots out, if they can.

Wethal on May 5, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Geez, I really thought that over 7000 votes would be a bridge too far for these folks. But, they’re really pulling out all the stops aren’t they. I bet all of our “every vote counts” trolls are very proud of this moment in our democracy, no?

hawkdriver on May 5, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Geez, I really thought that over 7000 votes would be a bridge too far for these folks. But, they’re really pulling out all the stops aren’t they. I bet all of our “every vote counts” trolls are very proud of this moment in our democracy, no?

hawkdriver on May 5, 2011 at 12:37 PM

If what I believe to be the Kloppenburg primary strategy works to perfection, 25,000 votes wouldn’t have been too far. Of course, they won’t mind disenfranchising half a county through the stall tactic; they don’t believe Lawgivers-In-Black should be elected at all.

They barely got through 3 of the 24 city of Brookfield wards, and there is no word that the GAB has petitioned for an extension of the deadline.

Steve Eggleston on May 5, 2011 at 2:32 PM

I think the nuns should picket the courthouse and demand that their votes count.

Common Sense on May 5, 2011 at 2:58 PM

I think the nuns should picket the courthouse and demand that their votes count.

Common Sense on May 5, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Would be funny, but they’re enclosed nuns, which means they never leave the convent except to go to the hospital or something like that. That’s why they vote absentee.

Wethal on May 5, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Late reporting or counting is a sign of fraud.

They don’t want to only create 7,000 fraudulent votes when they need 7,400 and they don’t want to create 7,000 fraudulent votes when they only need 500.

RJL on May 5, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Prosser 580,600 +305
Kloppy 542,461 +527

WoosterOh on May 5, 2011 at 7:34 PM