Wisconsin Supreme Court Recount – Day 13

posted at 2:15 pm on May 10, 2011 by Steve Eggleston

Since everybody rested on Sunday, there isn’t an update for Day 12. Monday was supposed to be the end of the recount, but due to the multitude of stalling tactics by the JoAnne Kloppenburg campaign in Waukesha County, the deadline for that county was extended to May 26. The other 71 counties completed their portions of the recount by the end of the statutory deadline, and the Government Accountability Board completed certification of the returns from 70 of them. With those 70 counties (containing 3,353 of the 3,602 reporting units), the 55 reporting units in Sauk County (the one county complete but not yet certified) and the 47 reporting units in Waukesha County recounted as of Saturday night, 95.92% of the reporting units have completed their recount of 1,411,609 votes (about 94% of the votes). That, along with the pre-recount totals in the 147 reporting units in Waukesha County not yet recounted, puts David Prosser’s lead over Kloppenburg at 6,977 votes.

Dane County’s minutes of the recount provide a rather interesting read. There were several torn ballot bags in the city of Madison, several instances of ballot bag seal numbers missing from the inspectors’ reports, ballots from two reporting units in two different municipalities that were initially missing from the recount room (both stacks of which favored Prosser in what were communities that were overwhelmingly carried by Kloppenburg, and which did not affect the pre-recount net margins once added), and an instance where an absentee ballot not cast at the municipal clerk’s office lacked a witness signature yet was counted both at the polls on election day and by the recount canvass board. I don’t need to tell you that there were no objections from the Kloppenburg campaign over any of this.

There was, however, an objection from the “non-partisan” Kloppenburg campaign on another ballot. In Madison’s Ward 59, the canvassers ruled a ballot that had a write-in for “Democratic one above” as a “scattering”; the Kloppenburg campaign wanted it counted for her.

WTMJ-AM’s Charlie Sykes got a hold of the latest Kloppenburg fundraising letter, sent out on Sunday. It strongly suggests she will avail herself of a judicial appeal of the results despite cutting less than 0.03 percentage points off of Prosser’s pre-recount 0.48-percentage-point lead. She would have 5 business days from the end of the recount to do so, which means that if Waukesha County takes until May 26, she could do so anytime before the end of the day June 3.

Updates will come a bit more slowly now that Waukesha County is the only one still counting. The GAB will issue an update of their unofficial tracking spreadsheet once daily, and while I may not necessarily do a full post daily, I will try to both summarize things on Twitter and keep my tracking spreadsheet up to date.

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

crr6: it is time to “find” the missing 8,000 ballots…

Khun Joe on May 10, 2011 at 2:18 PM

I don’t need to tell you that there were no objections from the Kloppenburg campaign over any of this.

Goons…

Seven Percent Solution on May 10, 2011 at 2:19 PM

WTMJ-AM’s Charlie Sykes got a hold of the latest Kloppenburg fundraising letter, sent out on Sunday. It strongly suggests she will avail herself of a judicial appeal of the results despite cutting less than 0.03 percentage points off of Prosser’s pre-recount 0.48-percentage-point lead. She would have 5 business days from the end of the recount to do so, which means that if Waukesha County takes until May 26, she could do so anytime before the end of the day June 3.

Why does she want to drag out her defeat as long as possible?

aunursa on May 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM

They counted an absentee ballot with no witness signature when it was for Kloppenburg, yet they refused to do the same for the nuns casting absentee ballots delivered by the municipal clerk’s office?
Another open and honest election brought to you by the democratic party.

lonestar1 on May 10, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Why does she want to drag out her defeat as long as possible?

aunursa on May 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM

It is part of the overall dem thuggery campaign to keep the union goons inflamed until the July recall elections.

This woman is a disgrace to the law profession.

karenhasfreedom on May 10, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Why does she want to drag out her defeat as long as possible?

aunursa on May 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM

“…a lot of things can happen in a year month. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die.

And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing.”

Bat Chain Puller on May 10, 2011 at 2:33 PM

I’m not sure, but I really believe the Democrats have gotten worse since January 2009. There is no real purpose, aside from setting up doubt on the next set of elections, to drag this recount out. To think that a political party would be willing to call the whole election process into question as a ploy is pretty amazing. How low can a political party drag the country before someone is willing to call them on it?

bflat879 on May 10, 2011 at 2:34 PM

They counted an absentee ballot with no witness signature when it was for Kloppenburg, yet they refused to do the same for the nuns casting absentee ballots delivered by the municipal clerk’s office?
Another open and honest election brought to you by the democratic party.

lonestar1 on May 10, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Because like with the Minnestoa senate recount, the Dems aggressively try to disqualify potential GOP votes, but the GOP plays nice, and doesn’t want to disenfranchise anybody.

Wethal on May 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM

With those 70 counties (containing 3,353 of the 3,602 reporting units), the 55 reporting units in Sauk County (the one county complete but not yet certified) and the 47 reporting units in Waukesha County recounted as of Saturday night, 95.92% of the reporting units have completed their recount of 1,411,609 votes (about 94% of the votes). That, along with the pre-recount totals in the 147 reporting units in Waukesha County not yet recounted, puts David Prosser’s lead over Kloppenburg at 6,977 votes.

So Kloppy managed to gain a net 400 votes or so out of 1.4 million recounted, and all that’s left to recount is in Waukesha county, which voted 73% for Prosser in pre-recount totals. Random errors and oversights in a given county tend to favor the candidate who won that county, so the recount in Waukesha County is extremely likely to INCREASE Prosser’s lead back over 7,000 votes.

WTMJ-AM’s Charlie Sykes got a hold of the latest Kloppenburg fundraising letter, sent out on Sunday. It strongly suggests she will avail herself of a judicial appeal of the results despite cutting less than 0.03 percentage points off of Prosser’s pre-recount 0.48-percentage-point lead.

On what basis? Why would any judge in his/her right mind reject counted, canvassed, re-counted, and certified results showing that Kloppy lost by 7,000 votes?

Steve Z on May 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM

bflat879 on May 10, 2011 at 2:34 PM

They see their last chance at being a permanent majority party slipping from their hands. The thrill of 2006 and 2008 are gone.

The 2010 elections flipped a lot of states, and the House, and 2012 does not bode well. They are desperate to cling to power any way they can.

After 2012, they will have a difficult time getting back into power by their usual tactic of promising lots of pork spending, because the electorate, especially the middle class, now knows this will be paid for with higher taxes.

Wethal on May 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Why does she want to drag out her defeat as long as possible?

aunursa on May 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM

karenhasfreedom on May 10, 2011 at 2:28 PM

And to keep Prosser from being seated, therefore putting the court at a 3-3 balance.

WhoU4 on May 10, 2011 at 2:41 PM

And to keep Prosser from being seated, therefore putting the court at a 3-3 balance.

WhoU4 on May 10, 2011 at 2:41 PM

But he’s already seated.

aunursa on May 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM

On what basis? Why would any judge in his/her right mind reject counted, canvassed, re-counted, and certified results showing that Kloppy lost by 7,000 votes?

Steve Z on May 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Because she’s hoping she will get a liberal judge, rather than one in his right mind.

FalseProfit on May 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Bat Chain Puller on May 10, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Mote in God’s Eye?

PackerBronco on May 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM

WTMJ-AM’s Charlie Sykes got a hold of the latest Kloppenburg fundraising letter, sent out on Sunday. It strongly suggests she will avail herself of a judicial appeal of the results despite cutting less than 0.03 percentage points off of Prosser’s pre-recount 0.48-percentage-point lead.

On what basis? Why would any judge in his/her right mind reject counted, canvassed, re-counted, and certified results showing that Kloppy lost by 7,000 votes?

Steve Z on May 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM

They will find a friendly democratic judge that will find in their favor. That’s what democratic judges do.

Democratic judges favor democratics, Republican judges favor the rule of law.

slickwillie2001 on May 10, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Dragged, kicking and screaming.

This is a glittering example of Democrat jurisprudence.

fossten on May 10, 2011 at 2:47 PM

But he’s already seated.

aunursa on May 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM

His current terms expires on 8/1. After that it’s 3-3, with the lefty chief justice being able to appoint a temp to sit by designation. And as Steve has said, she’ll pick a left-winger.

After 8/1, there might be some appeals of Walker’s union legislation reaching the WI supreme court.

Wethal on May 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Well, it looks like Kloppenburg won. I am absolutely confident in that fact, and there is a 0% chance that I will later be proven incorrect.

This post will never come back to bite me.

crr6 on April 7, 2011 at 5:21 PM

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Why does she want to drag out her defeat as long as possible?

aunursa on May 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Lefties win when they win, and when they lose.

Schadenfreude on May 10, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Lefties are never progressive, democratic or liberal.

They just hijacked the terms. Internalize this and watch them with lots of scrutiny and suspicion. They are out to destroy you and your progeny.

Schadenfreude on May 10, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Why does she want to drag out her defeat as long as possible?

aunursa on May 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM

She has to wait to find out how many ballots to find behind the couch in the county clerks office…

rgranger on May 10, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Wethal on May 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Spot on!

WhoU4 on May 10, 2011 at 3:01 PM

On what basis? Why would any judge in his/her right mind reject counted, canvassed, re-counted, and certified results showing that Kloppy lost by 7,000 votes?

Because the left wants Kloppenburg on the Supreme Court to overturn EVERYTHING Scott Walker and the Republicans — duly elected only last November — want to do.

Budget repair. Conceal carry. Voter ID. School choice.

I guarantee here and now that this is what’ going to happen:

1. Recount will show Kloppenburg still loses.
2. Kloppenburg will go to the courts (read: Dane County). She will argue that the Waukesha County votes should be thrown out because of the “irregularities” (damage bags, etc)…the same things her camp was okay with in Dane County.
3. Liberal Madison judge will buy this argument. Waukesha Co votes (probably Brookfield, but maybe whole county) will be tossed.
4. We have no recourse to contest this, from what I’ve heard. If I’m wrong, correct me.
5. Kloppenburg is newest Justice.
6. Wisconsin is lorded over by black-robed leftists in Madison and Scott Walker’s agenda is thwarted, which means Walker won’t win re-election and may even lose recall.

Hate to be pessimistic, but the left is dirty and hates Walker. They will stop at nothing to put Kloppenburg on the bench.

englishqueen01 on May 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Prosser should fight with every ‘gun’ he’s got.

Schadenfreude on May 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Cheer up, folks. The skinny lady hasn’t danced, yet.

Schadenfreude on May 10, 2011 at 3:09 PM

They will find a friendly democratic judge that will find in their favor. That’s what democratic judges do.

Democratic judges favor democratics, Republican judges favor the rule of law.

slickwillie2001 on May 10, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Precisely her plan. The reserve judge Lawgiver-In-Black who will initially hear this case will be appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice (and former employer of Kloppenburg) Shirley Abrahamson, who by all appearances has a vested interest in a result different than the one the majority of voters delivered.

Worse, the appeal out of that kangaroo court will be to the Madison-based 4th District Court of Appeals, which will be the last state-level court that matters due to a 3-3 split on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

It would take a federal appeal, and some luck on the draw of judges both in the Western District of Wisconsin and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (I note the Virginia PlaceboCare case is before 3 liberals in the 4th Circuit) to get this properly adjudicated prior to the United States Supreme Court.

Steve Eggleston on May 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I detect that the ghost of Lyndon Johnson is alive and well in Wisconsin. The votes of one precinct were lost for about a day during Johnson’s first senate election. He was behind by dozens of votes when all other precincts were counted. Surprise, a miracle, the ballots were found and he had more ballots than the number of people who voted.

burt on May 10, 2011 at 3:14 PM

As for the case regarding Act 10 (the public union-limiting law), the state Supreme Court has arguments scheduled for June 6 on whether to set aside Mariann Sumi’s block and take the larger case directly.

Steve Eggleston on May 10, 2011 at 3:14 PM

I smell a rat!

rjoco1 on May 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM

It strongly suggests she will avail herself of a judicial appeal of the results

Man, how easy was that to call a few weeks ago?

Bishop on May 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Steve Eggleston on May 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Would a challenge to alleged discrepancies in Waukesha County’s votes not have to be heard in Waukesha County District Court, rather than in Dane? Is Waukesha County in the 4th Appellate District so it wouldn’t really matter in which county it originates?

Wethal on May 10, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Steve, in Waukesha’s recount of Brookfield, although there were some bags that allegedly had gaps, or were lacking some seals, were there still enough bags that passed so that those ballots would still put Prosser comfortably over?

If Kloppenberg did get some bags of ballots disqualified in Brookfield, she would still be way behind in total votes.

Or is she trying to disqualify all of Brookfield, even the ballots in bags that were properly sealed, signed and containing valid ballots, and thus not subject to specific challenge.

Wethal on May 10, 2011 at 3:25 PM

This post will never come back to bite me.

crr6 on April 7, 2011 at 5:21 PM

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Thanks for this trip down the memory hole. When Kloppy finally has to admit it, I think this is humpbot worthy. But AP is too kind.

65droptop on May 10, 2011 at 3:29 PM

“Oh look! A bag of uncounted ballots I just found back here in this closet”!

44Magnum on May 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Would a challenge to alleged discrepancies in Waukesha County’s votes not have to be heard in Waukesha County District Court, rather than in Dane? Is Waukesha County in the 4th Appellate District so it wouldn’t really matter in which county it originates?

Wethal on May 10, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Chapter 9.01 of the state statutes controls that. It’s an election involving more than one appellate district, so the chief justice gets to appoint the reserve (i.e. retired or defeated for re-election, and applied for reserve status) judge. There is no restriction on the district where that reserve judge comes from, and indeed it is only assumed that the case would be heard in Dane County whether or not that reserve judge is from there.

The appeal out of that court (allowable up to 30 days after the final decision is rendered), because it is a statewide election, is to the 4th District.

Steve Eggleston on May 10, 2011 at 3:34 PM

crr6: it is time to “find” the missing 8,000 ballots…

Khun Joe on May 10, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Don’t worry-she’ll find them.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2011 at 3:35 PM

They will find a friendly democratic judge that will find in their favor. That’s what democratic judges do.

Democratic judges favor democratics, Republican judges favor the rule of law.

slickwillie2001 on May 10, 2011 at 2:47 PM

No such thing as an Activist Judge.

/crr6

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Steve, in Waukesha’s recount of Brookfield, although there were some bags that allegedly had gaps, or were lacking some seals, were there still enough bags that passed so that those ballots would still put Prosser comfortably over?

If Kloppenberg did get some bags of ballots disqualified in Brookfield, she would still be way behind in total votes.

Or is she trying to disqualify all of Brookfield, even the ballots in bags that were properly sealed, signed and containing valid ballots, and thus not subject to specific challenge.

Wethal on May 10, 2011 at 3:25 PM

I don’t have what all the 400 challenges issued in Waukesha County, which were summarily rejected by the board of canvassers and involved anything from a single ballot to entire wards, not just in the city of Brookfield, adds up to in terms of potential voters disenfranchised. Given the judicial appeal is not limited to what was challenged to and rejected by the the canvassers in the recount, as well as who I think will get the case, it doesn’t much matter.

Steve Eggleston on May 10, 2011 at 3:42 PM

On what basis? Why would any judge in his/her right mind reject counted, canvassed, re-counted, and certified results showing that Kloppy lost by 7,000 votes?

Steve Z on May 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Because he’s a slimey Democrat appointed to the bench by a Democrat?

Susanboo on May 10, 2011 at 3:58 PM

You can’t make this stuff up…. God save us from stupid liberals.

ultracon on May 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Actually, I hope they do steal it. Bring that word that cannot be mentioned on.

Lanceman on May 10, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Actually, I hope they do steal it. Bring that word that cannot be mentioned on.

Lanceman on May 10, 2011 at 4:27 PM

For obvious reasons, I strongly disagree. After all, I don’t feel like living in the Kingdom of Dane.

You don’t happen to live in Minnesota or Washington State, do you? I know you’re desperate for some other state to take the stink of being the states of the largest post-election theft of an election away from you, but this attempt is beyond ridiculous.

Steve Eggleston on May 10, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Democrats learned from Al Franken, that it makes no difference how much money or time you waste in attempting to steal an election – you’ve got nothing to lose.

disa on May 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Someone needs to ask the Klopster that if she and her fellow Lefty judicial goons fail to steal the election will she remove all the “P” keys from the courthouse keyboards ?

viking01 on May 10, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Someone needs to ask the Klopster that if she and her fellow Lefty judicial goons fail to steal the election will she remove all the “P” keys from the courthouse keyboards ?

viking01 on May 10, 2011 at 10:35 PM

It would be the 3 Lawgivers-In-Black already on the Supreme Court that would be stealing the “P”s from the keyboard; Kloppenburg was the challenger.

Steve Eggleston on May 11, 2011 at 7:56 AM

I think Kloppenburg should be billed by the state for insisting on this recount. Libs love spending other people’s money, now let her spend her own.

Wills on May 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM