Skip to main content

(Reposted with Brad's permission)

EXCLUSIVE: WI State Election Board Failed to Review Minutes From Waukesha County 'Recount' Before Certifying Supreme Court Election Results

Mountains of irregularities, more than 800 official exhibits, and objections by candidate's attorneys never examined by top state election authority before razor-thin results for 10-year seat on state's high court certified as 'correct'...

Last Monday, May 23rd, Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board (G.A.B.), the state's top election agency, officially certified the controversial results of the extraordinarily close April 5th statewide Supreme Court election and its subsequent "recount".

However, as The BRAD BLOG has learned, the agency certified those results without reviewing hundreds of official exhibits documenting wholesale ballot irregularities, on-the-record objections from the attorneys of the candidate who filed for the "recount", and thousands of pages of official transcripts and minutes documenting the entire "recount" process from the election's most controversial county.

Even more alarming, the agency doesn't even yet have a copy of the hundreds, if not thousands of pages which make up the official minutes documenting the nearly month-long "recount" from Waukesha County --- the last of the state's 72 counties to complete their count, and by far the most controversial county following the late discovery there of some 14,000 votes not included in the county's original Election Night results.

Indeed, the G.A.B. admits, they may not even have those minutes for another two weeks, despite the already-issued certification of the election results, and despite the fact that the statutory deadline for a candidate to file a challenge to those certified results in court is tomorrow (Tuesday).

The official minutes from most of the other 71 counties, as documented during the "recount" of the razor-thin, highly contentious election for a 10-year term on the state's high court between incumbent Republican Justice David Prosser and his independent challenger Asst. Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, have been posted on the G.A.B.'s website for some time, with the 71st, Milwaukee County, finally posted late last week.

With Kloppenburg set to announce her decision on whether to seek a judicial review tomorrow, Waukesha's lengthy and detailed minutes are not posted for public review with all of the others, despite massive and alarming irregularities discovered during the "recount" process there over the past month (see here, here, and here for just a few of many examples), because the G.A.B. has not been given them by the county, as state officials conceded during phone conversations late last week...


JoAnne Kloppenburg's last day to decide to seek a judicial review is Tuesday (today). We need to flood her campaign's inbox and phone lines with support to expose the corruption in Waukesha county.

JoKlo's website:

The Kloppenburg For Justice Committee

Melissa Mulliken
Campaign Manager



Originally posted to Cieran on Tue May 31, 2011 at 12:06 AM PDT.

Also republished by Badger State Progressive and ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (146+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard, Pam from Calif, Sandino, voracious, Floande, swarf, wu ming, HeartlandLiberal, Carlo, MartyM, Actbriniel, plankbob, elwior, lcs, coquiero, radarlady, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, DiegoUK, Aranfell, sceptical observer, skohayes, marykk, tobendaro, marleycat, OleHippieChick, ruleoflaw, wmc418, concernedamerican, peregrine kate, molunkusmol, RhodaA, Permanent Republican Minority, El Tomaso, democracy inaction, sodalis, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Gustogirl, statsone, regis, merrily1000, OutCarolineStreet, JanL, mofembot, arlene, LSmith, stlsophos, leu2500, NJpeach, Linda in Ohio, Josiah Bartlett, wild hair, Loudoun County Dem, Dirk McQuigley, psnyder, bluestatedem84, dewtx, frisbee, Pinto Pony, Ice Blue, litoralis, rantsposition, Dom9000, Scioto, Gowrie Gal, Gemina13, MadRuth, exterris, karmsy, Words In Action, boojieboy, Its a New Day, glitterscale, Vicky, GeorgeXVIII, PeterHug, RFK Lives, Imhotepsings, Julie Gulden, CA Nana, tgrshark13, IL clb, JVolvo, qannabbos, aoeu, Dopeman, Empower Ink, dark daze, ExStr8, totallynext, Texnance, hachero, jcrit, Ozzie, Montreal Progressive, VA Breeze, awcomeon, Lujane, thomask, fiddlingnero, Philpm, dansk47, GAladybug, JoeEngineer, Russgirl, Haf2Read, notrouble, 2laneIA, quiet in NC, Rogneid, poligirl, eru, prettygirlxoxoxo, FarWestGirl, revsue, joe shikspack, progressivebadger, petulans, peacestpete, jacey, chgobob, DvCM, Tinfoil Hat, Tookish, jl4851, FWIW, MJ via Chicago, ManOnTheBench, antirove, bibble, old wobbly, bakeneko, PBen, sherlyle, SeaTurtle, stormicats, Seamus D, Preston S, dlemex, hodag, happymisanthropy, millwood, Sunspots, ColoTim, chimpy, dotsright, ca democrat
  •  is there a chance of getting an (30+ / 0-)

    honest judge for a judicial review?

    Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Tue May 31, 2011 at 12:18:55 AM PDT

  •  Why have rules and regulations if there are (55+ / 0-)

    no consequences when they aren't observed? If seals on ballot bags don't match, and that doesn't matter, then why bother with them in the first place?

    "Pretty soon we're not going to be able to find reasonable decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serving public office." Sheriff Dupnik, AZ

    by voracious on Tue May 31, 2011 at 12:36:30 AM PDT

  •  Brad is late to the party (30+ / 0-)

    I pointed out last week that Waukesha didn't plan to complete its minutes until maybe today.

    Brad seems to think the GAB has done something bad here, but I don't know why. I don't see where the GAB is required to review the minutes before certifying the results. If the GAB hadn't published the rest of the minutes on the Web -- which I don't think it is required to do either -- I wonder if Brad would even have noticed.

    The immediate practical question that I can see is whether the Kloppenburg campaign was denied information it needs in order to make a determination of whether to contest the recount. Since the campaign had observers at the recount, it probably has a pretty good sense of that.

    Regardless, it's indefensible for the county to take this long to complete the minutes.

    •  I agree, HVM (12+ / 0-)

      I don't think it's a big deal that the GAB didn't review the minutes, since they claim their only job is to check for  math errors and clarify the rules for county canvass boards.

      The GAB will tell you that the county canvass board is ultimately responsible for the decisions on whether to discount votes. I think the GAB is being a bit disingenuous when they say that, but that's what they'll say and technically that's true. I'm more concerned that the GAB will not release their audit report on Kathy Nickolaus until at least another month from now.

      Appeal to the courts is the only recourse available. It's unfortunate, though, that once again Waukesha is late to class (with a hall pass from the GAB) and hasn't allowed Kloppenburg to make an informed decision based on all the information available. I don't think Kloppenburg can concede because the questions about Waukesha have not been answered.

      it is hereby DECLARED that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of Wis. Stats. §§ 991.11, 35.095(1)(b) and 35.095(3)(b), and is therefore not in effect.

      by Giles Goat Boy on Tue May 31, 2011 at 06:15:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure what the best approach is (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dragonlady, ColoTim, elwior

        I am anything but a Wisconsin election lawyer, and I don't think the statute is crystal clear by a long shot -- but it seems that the purpose of appealing a recount is to alter the outcome. If Kloppenburg doesn't have a reasonable basis for thinking that she got more votes, then I'm skeptical that an appeal is the correct course.

        The question is: if appealing the recount isn't the right approach, what is? I suspect that the answer has multiple parts. Probably the best answer would include legislation, although I won't hold my breath for that. I'm somewhat more optimistic that the GAB will, under pressure, act to clean up some the procedural messes where it doesn't need legislation. (The GAB may even be able to press effectively for legislation it considers necessary. I don't know whether or how that works in Wisconsin, but often state election officials have their own legislative agenda.) Waukesha County officials have had pointed questions for Kathy Nickolaus in the past, and I think they should have some more now. If there is any sign of criminal activity, then criminal investigations and prosecutions are possible.

        •  Unlikely. (4+ / 0-)

          As long as we continue to put faith in corporate made, extremely flawed, questionably certified, easily hackable and prone to error, inauditable voting machines...then our elections will always be faith based.

          This recount found hundreds, if not thousands of votes that were improperly counted, by the machines, for a number of reasons.  Yet half the state still simply re-fed the ballots through the machines again.  The voting tapes that supposedly PROVE the outcome is lefit, wasn't working in some areas (and nobody noticed, let alone checked to verify the machine printed out the proper result) and in at least one case, the "offificial" polling tape had a date on it from before the election.  Yet we still are just supposed to TRUST everything is proper and the results are right.

          And there is already legislation in many cases of how things are supposed to be handled and those rules were simply not followed and the ballots counted anyway.  

          But I DO think you've hit the real problem on the head.  BOTH sides have bought into the BS that the voting, and vote-counting machines, are perfectly reliable and trustworthy.  And as long as they continue to maintain that mindset, they will continue to only look out for their own self interests instead of the interests of the people.  

          As you said, Kloppenburg will likely look at whether or not a legal challenge will help her win, and if she thinks it won't, she will just agree that the "certified" results are accurate...which actually legitimizes all the problems, errors, failures, questionable activity, etc because the media simply won't cover or talk about the problems.  They will just report that the result is certified and both parties agree it is legit.   Nothing more to see here...keep moving.

          •  sort of muddled (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Giles Goat Boy

            The machines aren't "inauditable." Most Wisconsinites voted on paper ballots, which can trivially be recounted. Yes, many of those ballots were recounted by machine rather than by hand -- dumb law, in my opinion, although there is a rationale -- but that isn't a property of the machines.

            Some Wisconsinites voted on DREs. Your comment appears to conflate the two voting methods. I guess that's fine for purposes of advocating "100% hand count or bust," but for people who are trying to understand what happened in Wisconsin, it seems suboptimal.

            •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

              There were many, many problems reported.  However, I do equate all the voting machines whether touch screen or optical scan because they are all made by the same small handful of companies, NONE can be audited to verify that they worked properly on election day, and each and every one of them have proven to be not only extremely prone to failure in a number of ways, but also can be quickly and easily hacked by a single person and affect entire elections.  

              Since the only way to determine if the machines were hacked/tampered with or worked properly at all would be to audit the software before and after every election (which can't be done since the software is protected by law) there is literally no way to guarantee the results are real.

              Some may point to paper trails?  The same paper trails that in this election didn't work and nobody even noticed?  Or the paper trails dated BEFORE the actual election day?  

              Meanwhile, the handcount found close to 3,000 ballots that were improperly counted for whatever reason.   That is 3,000 ballots that the machines miscounted and, for whatever reason, nobody new about it until a HAND recount.  Since a hand recount of some or all of the ballots was only done in half the state, how many MORE miscounted ballots were refed into the same machines that already failed to work properly?   How many more miscounted ballots are out there?  Why didn't paper trails prevent those 3,000 mistakes?

              So the fact is that right now, there is no different between touch screen voting machines or the optical scan vote counting machines.  They are both garbage for the exact same reasons.  And with legislation in place that seemingly makes the paper ballot harder to count and less legitimate than what the machine tells us...something is very wrong.

              •  still muddled (0+ / 0-)
                Some may point to paper trails?  The same paper trails that in this election didn't work and nobody even noticed?  Or the paper trails dated BEFORE the actual election day?  

                As I pointed out, most of the "paper trails" are hand-marked paper ballots. Most of those, actually, were recounted by hand. Others were recounted by machine, but generally not the same machines that originally counted them. Also, we can compare the results in the jurisdictions where op-scan ballots were recounted by hand with the results where ballots were rescanned. I think all those ballots should have been recounted by hand, but it's kind of silly to talk as if the process was indistinguishable from having everyone vote on DREs.
    •  All is well! Move along folks! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The rules were followed. We just need to move along and accept the word of our betters.

      Hey Everybody! NBA playoffs tonight! Going to be great!

      Really everybody, the rules were followed. Everything is fine.

      You're getting sleepy.

      You're getting sleepy.

      You're getting


    •  No he isn't. (5+ / 0-)

      He's been reporting this election since day one, and he has been covering similar election problems for years.

      Meanwhile, the article clearly states that he has been in talks with the GAB for weeks now and that they refuse to comment on any election irregularities until after seeing the minutes, but then still certifiy the election results (with confidence yet).

      I don't think BB is saying they are intentionally bad people or doing something bad intenionally.  Simply pointing out the fact that the system is so broken there is literally no way to trust the outcomes of the election regardless of who wins.

      This needs to change.

      •  certify with confidence? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        What does that actually mean?

        It's swell that Brad has been in talks with the GAB for weeks, but if he can't write more precisely than he did in this article, I don't see how it does the rest of us any good.

        •  re: certify with confidence. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, joe shikspack

          The GAB didn't just look at the math and then certify.  The GAB basically turned a deaf ear to all the irregularities and errors and huge problems and basically said, "hey, it is close enough to the poll tapes so any problems are minor and don't affect the ultimate outcome".

          Yet there is evidence that the poll tapes are problematic, and in some cases, never worked at all.  When brought to their attention that the source of their "trust" is itelf plagued with problems, they once agian just turn a deaf ear.

          By their own words, the result is "certified" because the recount is "close enough" to the poll tapes.  Yet there is evidence the poll tapes themselves are untrustworthy and unverified.

          •  "basically... basically" (0+ / 0-)

            If you get to "basically" make up what the GAB "basically" did, that won't necessarily provide much insight into what the GAB actually did.

            (What is it that you think the GAB should have done?)

            Yet there is evidence that the poll tapes are problematic, and in some cases, never worked at all.

            You may know the difference between op-scan results tapes and DRE VVPATs, but there is no way of telling based on your words here and elsewhere.
            By their own words, the result is "certified" because the recount is "close enough" to the poll tapes.

            Their own words? Really?

            So is it your view that if the recount had shown Kloppenburg to be the winner, then the GAB would have refused to certify because the recount wouldn't have been "close enough" to the poll tapes?

            •  Allow me to clarify (0+ / 0-)

              What would I have the GAB do?  Well, I fail to see how with this many problems in a single state election, the GAB can "certify" anything without some sort of disclaimer or voice of concern.  I also don't see how it is possible for ANYONE to certify ANY election with this many problems without first reviewing the report.  That may not be the responsibility of the GAB but it seems like a massive flaw in the system to have election results certified before ever seeing a report of all the massive problems.  

              Doesn't that make any sense to you?  Am I seriously talking crazy?

              Part of the reason there is so little information out there regarding the problems elections have these days is because the media doesn't cover the local stories that well, if they cover them much at all.  They don't detail all the problems.  What the media relies on is the report from the GAB saying the results are certified, so then the media will continue reporting that everything is perfect and democracy has worked once again!   Yet there is little to no evidence of that, if you ask me.  

              Instead, what we are left with is a system where someone has to go to court and fight against all the problems and technically FIGHT against the fact the results were certified.  This makes it look like the "loser" (since there is zero incentive for the winner to care about election problems) is trying to overthrow the "certified" and therefore "legitimate" outcome.  There is no way for this to be a winning battle.    

              In fact I just looked and Kloppenburg has conceded the election and will not challenge it in court.  Because once the election is certified, the burden of proof to overturn it is so high that not even the hundred of problems is enough to overturn the certified/legitimate result.  Move along now...nothing more to see here people.  Just trust that everything is above board.

              As for your second question, yes, the GAB said if the "recount" numbers generally match Election Night poll tapes printed out by the tabulation computers, they were satisfied that there was no “fraud.”  However, one of those results tapes is dated before the actual day of the election.  And some areas poll tapes, which people are supposed to be able to check to make sure their votes were counted correctly, didn’t even work and nobody noticed.  Do we just assume their votes were counted correctly despite the thousands of miscounted votes that were found by the hand recount?  

              Please note that I put “fraud” in quotes above because I have no interest in whether or not fraud occurred by an individual and group.  That should answer your last straw man comment.  

              My concern is that democracy as a whole is becoming a fraud because of the embarrassing joke it has become.  Because of voting machines (touch screen, optical scan, it literally makes ZERO difference which), and all the barriers that seem to be in place, a single state can’t even hold simple election.  Yet other countries like Canada can have an entire national election, all on hand counted ballots, and results were 100% verifiable and counted the same day?    

              You don’t find it strange that we are supposed to be the shining star of democracy – the envy of the world – and we can’t even hold a single simple state election without literally hundreds of pieces of evidence that something is terribly wrong?   And WI isn’t the first.  Hell, it isn’t even the exception to the rule.  This is happening every time, everywhere.  This is the new normal for elections.  It sure doesn’t seem like a confidence boosting step forward for democracy to me.  

              •  how can the GAB _not_ certify? (0+ / 0-)

                Does it even have the legal authority to demand the Waukesha minutes as a precondition of certification? Maybe it does, but that isn't apparent to me, and I haven't seen anyone seriously try to make the case.

                Moreover, I think we all know damn well that the minutes won't settle all the questions about Waukesha. What exactly is the point of insisting that the GAB should have reviewed them, other than to have a basis for complaining about the GAB?

                I suspect there will be many opportunities for informed observers to be highly critical of the GAB. I don't know why Brad picked this one, or why you're going along with it.

                Presumably Kloppenburg isn't challenging the election result because she doesn't think she has sufficient evidence to overturn it. As far as I can tell, you don't either. How is that the GAB's fault, or the media's?

                ...yes, the GAB said if the "recount" numbers generally match Election Night poll tapes printed out by the tabulation computers, they were satisfied that there was no “fraud.”  

                What are you quoting?

                Dunno, seems like you're pretty much marinating in FUD. I don't think that's a great way of advancing election integrity.

                •  You are correct. (0+ / 0-)

                  It won't settle anything, unfortunately.

                  And I also openly admit that the GAB may not have the authority to NOT certify the election.  However, I would ask why we even need to certify elections if any and all problems that creep up are ignored or swept under the rug.  It is no different from all the people who are saying it makes no difference if chain of custody was broken in a number of ways, and ballot bags are wide open or missing numbers...well, if that is the case then what is the point of the procedures?  

                  This is what is so frustrating.  We have a number of processes and procedures in place to ensure safe, secure and verifiable elections.  Yet when these procedures are not followed, for whatever reason, people just shrug and count the votes anyway.  It doesn't matter, they say, because objections will be noted in the report.  But then what is the point of the report since the election is over, certified and confirmed with potentially tampered or illegal ballots counted?  

                  Again, I ask, is this just crazy talk?  

                  Meanwhile, my comments on the media have nothing to do with the court case and more the public perception that allows these problems to be swept under the rug and, actually, makes fighting election irregularities MORE difficult in any forum.

                  You can hate what I'm saying all you like, but it is insanity to me that there are rules and regulations in place to assure election results are verifiable and when those procedures are broken, nobody cares and says they don't matter.  As I've said many times before, it is faith based democracy.  We have no way of knowing for sure the voters had their say...we just have to take the word of the people counting the ballots that everything is above board, because we can't prove it and evidence seems to the contrary.

                  And to accuse me of FUD, is laughable considering this is a discussion about election integrity and you seeming to have no concerns about the impact all the problems, not just in WI, but all across the country in every single election, have on democracy.  

                  Because it seems to me that it is impossible to ignore all the problems, or write them off as not important, and then say you care about election integrity.  That is someone, who in my opinion, only cares about the end result and not necessarily the integrity of obtaining that results.

                  •  OK, let's drill down (0+ / 0-)
                    However, I would ask why we even need to certify elections if any and all problems that creep up are ignored or swept under the rug.  It is no different from all the people who are saying it makes no difference if chain of custody was broken in a number of ways, and ballot bags are wide open or missing numbers...well, if that is the case then what is the point of the procedures?

                    I don't know where all these people are who "are saying it makes no difference if chain of custody was broken in a number of ways," etc. What's important, I think, is to be able to distinguish issues.

                    Like it or not, U.S. elections don't get rerun. That being the case, it was necessary and appropriate for people to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Kloppenburg probably won the election. Most people concluded that there wasn't -- apparently including Kloppenburg. That isn't because it's inherently impossible for an election conducted mostly on op-scan to yield such evidence.

                    That's just one issue. Another issue is whether anyone should face legal and/or disciplinary action because of his or her actions. And another issue is how to improve election procedures in the future. To be frank, people who run around saying "faith-based elections! faith-based elections!" don't strike me as having much useful to say about any of those issues.

                    you seeming to have no concerns about the impact all the problems

                    Yeah, that's the kind of unsupportable slander that has made election integrity controversial on Daily Kos. Congratulations to you and yours. Damn, it's been a long six years.
  •  Kloppenberg already (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, elwior

    "conceded" the race, I think. If so, does that have any effect on whether she would or could challenge the certification?

    There are two truths: love and mathematics (and I'm not sure about mathematics).

    by RhodaA on Tue May 31, 2011 at 04:16:32 AM PDT

  •  I hope Kloppenberg pursues this. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, elwior, Sark Svemes

    Such corruption should not go unanswered. The wingers will  mock and accuse her of being a poor loser, but she'll be a hero to me and to all who care about clean and fair elections.

    •  There's no evidence of corruption (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Concern Troll, VClib

      There's evidence of human error. There's no evidence of corruption. None. Zero. Zilch.

      •  You must be confused. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        draba, elwior, Sunspots

        This diary is about the WI SC election. Which election are you thinking of in which there is no evidence of corruption?

        Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

        by Catsy on Tue May 31, 2011 at 07:36:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This election, in this state (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Concern Troll

          There's no evidence of corruption. None.

          There was no evidence of corruption in Waukesha. None.

          You are the one who must be confused, either about what happened there or what the word 'corruption" means.

          What we've seen is widespread human error. That's not the same as corruption. There's no evidence of bad intent, of any malicious behavior.

          •  Can you say that a few more times.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            just a few more and it might start to sound true.  At the very least there was an element of corruption just by leaving Waukesha County clerk Kathy Nickolaus in charge of elections given her past "screw ups" and her ties to Prosser.  

            The more you learn the less you know.

            by quiet in NC on Tue May 31, 2011 at 08:15:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  quiet in NC - Kathy Nicholas is elected (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              quiet in NC, elwior, DollyMadison

              Without an indictment in hand here is nothing corrupt about leaving an official in an elected office, even if that elected official is Kathy Nicholas, who has a checkered past.  So try again, what was corrupt in this election and where is the evidence to prove it?

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Tue May 31, 2011 at 09:13:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It shouldn't simply "sound true" (0+ / 0-)

              It is true.

              There's zero evidence of corruption. None.

              And further evidence of that is the fact that no one ever provided a single piece of evidence to contradict what I said.

              It's your failing that you are allowing your preconceived notions to color your viewpoint. You're the one behaving badly, refusing to allow facts to change your mind.

              The fact is that there's no evidence of any corruption in Wisconsin. There's no evidence that Kathy Nickolaus exhibited any corruption, or that allowing the county clerk to participate in the recount was a problem.

              And there's no evidence that Kathy Nickolaus was 'tied' to Prosser. I've debunked that talking point multiple times in many diaries on this topic. She didn't even know him when they were both in the legislature.

              Her past screw-ups were human error. There's no evidence of any malicious intent in any of those instances.

      •  A series of coincidences (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, 3goldens

        Nothing more than that. Don't worry. All is well.

        Time to move on.

      •  True, but (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, 3goldens, Voodoo, Sunspots, mofembot

        The problem is there is also little to no evidence that the "certified" results from this election is even remotely accurate.

        That is the problem and as long as these problems continue, in the ridiculous and extreme way they have been, nobody who hears about this is going to trust the results.  And people who mistrust the results are just automatically going to chalk it up to corruption whether there is evidence of not.   It is to be expected when we have fallen from the shining star of democracy to having faith based elections, systemic problems, politically appointed/connected vote officials, and 14,000 votes appearing two days after an elections ends.

    •  Agreed! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Tue May 31, 2011 at 11:29:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Constructive criticism 101 (11+ / 0-)

    I'm glad the diarist sourced the story to Brad Blog. However, the diarist appeared to lift entire paragraphs verbatim without blockquoting them, thereby giving the reader the impression was that this was original writing and they were just plugging BB as the original source.

    Naturally, I clicked on the link and I didn't even get halfway through the article before I realized that it had basically been lifted from BB.

    Besides probably violating copyright (unless BB granted permission), the diarist seems to have violated diary guidelines for quoting and may have engaged in plagiarism.

    As a result, and until these problems are rectified, I can not in good conscience give a recommendation.

  •  STILL THINK (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Still think you live in a democracy?

    Nope, we play one on TV.  Thats all we do, we pretend.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Tue May 31, 2011 at 07:05:23 AM PDT

  •  another stolen election (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Sunspots

    Why do we keep letting them get away with this crap?

    U.S. Chamber of Commerce not working for US. Stop outsourcing American jobs!

    by MJ via Chicago on Tue May 31, 2011 at 09:33:51 AM PDT

  •  Kloppenberg concedes race.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Sark Svemes

    From the Kenosha News website:

    5/31 11:12 am
    Kloppenburg concedes court race to Prosser

    MADISON (AP) - JoAnne Kloppenburg this morning conceded defeat in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race against incumbent conservative Justice David Prosser.
    Kloppenburg's decision comes after a statewide recount reaffirmed Prosser's victory over her in the April 5 election.
    Prosser originally won the election by 7,316 votes, out of 1.5 million cast. Kloppenburg picked up only 312 votes in the recount.


    A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person.
    Dave Barry

    by Laughing Vergil on Tue May 31, 2011 at 11:27:48 AM PDT

  •  This ought to go to Court, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sark Svemes

     even if the election results stay the same, if only to get to the bottom of this mess in Waukesha County.

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Tue May 31, 2011 at 11:28:05 AM PDT

    •  Won't happen. (0+ / 0-)

      Kloppenberg already conceded and said she would not go to court because the burdern of proof to overturn the result is way too high.  Countless irregularities and problems is not enough to overturn an election...which would be the only reason to go to court.

      However, the GAB would be responsible to start an investigation into why all these problems happened.  Kloppenberg has already submitted a request for an investigation but has stated there has been no response as of yet.

      But since WI has already stated that hundred of wide open ballot bags and exposed ballots does not necessitate fraud and those ballots are fine and can be counted...I doubt a serious investigation will be mounted.

Tookish, Marek, RF, True North, MadRuth, glitterscale, GreenSooner, madmsf, PeterHug, wu ming, donna in evanston, xynz, RFK Lives, jancw, concernedamerican, KMc, gayntom, mrblifil, chimpy, jbeach, jalbert, Nate Roberts, antirove, Redfire, gmb, lcrp, alizard, Vicky, jcrit, bibble, Gowrie Gal, davidkc, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, ManOnTheBench, democracy inaction, PBen, dewtx, eru, Pam from Calif, Kayakbiker, Ice Blue, Sandino, Ozzie, serrano, sodalis, quiet in NC, Rogneid, Lindy, peacestpete, JanL, JanF, kkjohnson, CJnyc, Philpm, sherlyle, Mr Bojangles, tobendaro, liberalminded, ruleoflaw, arlene, MJ via Chicago, wild hair, JVolvo, joe shikspack, Preston S, sceptical observer, middleagedhousewife, IL clb, CA Nana, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, louise the dog, ammasdarling, old wobbly, xgz, Loudoun County Dem, Mr K, FWIW, ColoTim, gailwax, DvCM, rantsposition, ca democrat, SeaTurtle, millwood, jhop7, GeorgeXVIII, janatallow, Empower Ink, VA Breeze, KLS, Scioto, Concern Troll, poligirl, OleHippieChick, elwior, skohayes, Laughing Vergil, Lujane, hwmnbn, mofembot, Seamus D, Gemina13, petulans, statsone, Fiddlegirl, prettygirlxoxoxo, litoralis, juca, Dopeman, notrouble, IreGyre, hachero, awcomeon, NJpeach, voracious, freeport beach PA, samanthab, dlemex, DiegoUK, Texnance, debk, Actbriniel, coquiero, FarWestGirl, California06, molunkusmol, Haf2Read, marleycat, thomask, slooterdam, BarackStarObama, merrily1000, CherryTheTart, Sark Svemes, peregrine kate, JoeEngineer, Sunspots, stlsophos, disillusionedbabyboomer, Nightshade Q, Dom9000, jacey, Pinto Pony, stormicats, RhodaA, Trevin, congenitalefty, progressivebadger, MartyM, qannabbos, GAladybug

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site