Wisconsin Presidential Recount: Missing the Deadline

Last time Wisconsin had a statewide recount, a place on the Wisconsin Supreme Court was at stake. Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg, a union puppet, challenged her loss to David Prosser.

The recount took more than a month. Kloppenburg had the votes of nuns thrown out. It was ugly, and a complete waste of time and money.

Even after the recount was completed, Kloppenburg was slow to accept it.

The Wisconsin recount of the 2016 presidential race could be messier, given that twice as many votes will need to be recounted. Making matters worse, Stein is demanding that the recount be done by hand.

From Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit:

Federal law says that presidential recounts must be completed within 35 days after an election. Stein waited until 90 minutes before the Wisconsin deadline for filing a recount petition expired.

All the votes have to be certified by December 13 according to a report on Friday. The electors meet on December 19.

Wisconsin will almost certainly miss that deadline, since the last recount took more than a month. And that recount was for a state Supreme Court contest where only 1.5 million votes were cast.

If Wisconsin misses the December 19 deadline, the electoral votes may not be counted.

What happens if the recount isn't completed by the deadline?

Does that mean Wisconsinites will be effectively disenfranchised in the 2016 presidential election?

Hoft points out that if "Wisconsin’s electoral votes are excluded on December 19, the state will then have to try and get Congress to include the votes in the January 6 count."

I can't believe that Congress would fail to "count every vote" and simply just toss out the Wisconsin election results.

All of this is crap. I'm certain Jill Stein intentionally waited until the final hour to file for a recount in Wisconsin to make it as difficult as possible to meet the deadline. There's no other realistic explanation.

Such sleazy tactics don't win over hearts and minds.

If the Leftists are hoping to annul the electoral votes of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, they are truly deranged.

It angers me that Leftists are attempting to overturn the results of the election.

Millions of Americans will not be disenfranchised just because Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton waited to challenge the results of the election. That plot won't work.

I won't stand for my vote to be disregarded.

I don't believe it will happen, but the fact that the anti-Trump contingent wants it to happen makes me sick.

Kathy Nickolaus: No Criminal Misconduct

Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus did not engage in criminal misconduct related to her election night performance last April.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The state Government Accountability Board said on Wednesday it found probable cause to believe that Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus violated the state law requiring county clerks to post all returns on election night, but concluded that the violation in the April election was not willful and therefore did not constitute criminal misconduct.

Nickolaus became the focus of formal complaints and national attention after she failed to include city of Brookfield votes in her unofficial election night results in the April 5 Supreme Court race between incumbent Justice David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg, an assistant attorney general.

...The Government Accountability Board on Wednesday released the independent investigation report by former Dane County prosecutor Timothy Verhoff, as well as a GAB staff report and related documents.

Nickolaus was not immediately available for comment Wednesday. Her office said Nickolaus would issue a written statement in response to the GAB findings by the end of the day.

Included in the released documents was a letter from Government Accountability Board Chair Thomas H. Barland to Nickolaus that was critical of her actions and noted that she undermined public trust.

"Your failure to post election returns at the reporting unit level on Election Night led candidates for the office of Supreme Court Justice, Wisconsin voters and members of the media at the state and national level to believe the election for State Supreme Court Justice was within 200 votes when in fact unofficial returns would have shown a difference of more than 7,000 votes out of approximately 1.5 million votes cast," Barland wrote.

"This action has significantly undermined public confidence in the conduct of elections in Wisconsin and Waukesha County. As a result state and local election officials, and you in particular, will have to regain the trust of the Wisconsin electorate in the administration of elections in Wisconsin and Waukesha County," Barland states.

The board ordered Nickolaus to follow the law and have procedures in place by the Feb. 21 primary election and subsequent elections "to ensure accountability and transparency in your actions," according to the letter.

Democrats must be disappointed, but there's still hope.

Maybe someone will accuse Nickolaus of putting a political opponent in a chokehold.

Prosser, Bradley: The Choke Report

Ann Walsh Bradley doesn't know what it means to be choked.

She's made a fool of herself, but the real victim in all of this is Justice David Prosser, unfairly being accused of assaulting Bradley.

I don't think Bradley has the wisdom necessary to be a competent justice if she thinks contact constitutes a chokehold.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

In interviews with detectives on July 8, Prosser described the impromptu argument between two groups of justices in Bradley's chambers and said that Bradley "charged" him with her fist raised. He said that he may have been unable to back up because of a piece of office furniture and that he put up his hands to defend himself.

"Did my hands touch her neck, yes, I admit that. Did I try to touch her neck, no, absolutely not, it was a total reflex," Prosser said.

Detectives only recorded their interview with Prosser, a fact not explained in the report.

The confrontation between Prosser and Bradley happened after he questioned Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, saying he had lost faith in her ability to lead the court.

Bradley said she confronted Prosser because he was agitated and loud and she wanted him to leave her suite of offices. Bradley said she was "in control" and denied that she had rushed toward him or raised her fist, saying instead she had walked to him and pointed to the door.

" 'Buddy, get out of my office,' " Bradley said she told Prosser during an interview with a detective on July 12. While saying that, she said in a June 28 interview she was "standing face to face to confront (Prosser)."

She said she specifically remembered using the word "buddy" for a reason.

"Buddy puts me in control and them in the diminutive," she told a detective.

Later, Bradley said, she could recall the contact of Prosser's hands on her neck but no pain or pressure. She did say that she had become emotional after the incident.

Good grief.

This required a special prosecutor?

More government waste.

Video, FOX 6 News:

 

Read the report.

Mike Lowe, FOX 6, Harasses Prosser, Other Justices

Here's a FOX 6 News EXCLUSIVE!

Reporter Mike Lowe goes to Madison and shoves his microphone in the faces of four of Wisconsin's Supreme Court Justices.

They all react in relatively the same manner to Lowe's aggressive behavior: No comment.

Wow! What a scoop!

 

Prosser, Anger Management

I don't know how the Wisconsin Supreme Court manages to conduct any business at all.

The lunacy is stunning.

Liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley had the audacity to suggest that Justice David Prosser should get treatment for anger management.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley asked Justice David Prosser to seek therapy to manage his anger two days after she says he put his hands around her neck, but he declined to do so, according to sources familiar with the situation.

The request came June 15, when all the justices met with Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to discuss the June 13 altercation between Prosser and Bradley. At least some of Prosser's fellow conservatives on the court said it would be ridiculous for him to take such courses, the sources said.

I think it might be a good idea for all the justices to have group therapy.

Sheriff David Mahoney

Is Sheriff David Mahoney the right person to investigate the Wisconsin Supreme Court Choking case?

Short answer: NO.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney -- who is now investigating a claim Supreme Court Justice David Prosser put his hands around another justice’s neck during an argument earlier this month -- endorsed Prosser’s opponent in the recent race for Supreme Court.

The Democratic sheriff endorsed Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg in her challenge to Prosser in the April 5 election. Mahoney and Kloppenburg also use the same campaign manager, Melissa Mulliken, who has worked on many state and local campaigns.

Mahoney took over the investigation Monday at the request of Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs. Tubbs said he consulted with the court before turning over the investigation to Mahoney.

Media Trackers spells out the very real concerns about Mahoney's impartiality:

The need for an impartial investigator to look into allegations of a physical altercation between two Wisconsin Supreme Courtjustices is absolutely critical. Wisconsinites deserve to know the full truth about this matter, and parties that are guilty of misconduct should explain their actions. Following the announcement by Capitol Police that the investigation will now be handled by Dane County Sheriff David Mahoney, MediaTrackers expressed concern over the sheriff's impartiality in the situation.

"After looking into Sheriff Mahoney's record, we have substantial reservations about his qualification to lead his department in a thorough and impartial investigation of this matter," stated Brian Sikma, Communications Director for Media Trackers. "Notwithstanding his long record of service to the public through law enforcement, the very politically charged nature of this particular investigation could prevent the public from resting full confidence in Sheriff Mahoney's abilities."

Citing a list of political activities, official actions, and unguarded public statements from Mahoney, Sikma concluded, "Sheriff David Mahoney’s partisan background and public statements raise questions about his ability to lead an impartial investigation. The sheriff should either explain why these items are not going to factor into any bias in the investigation, or recuse himself from the role altogether."

The following is a record of Dane County Sheriff David Mahoney's political, professional and public actions and statements that are cause for concern when it comes to his handling of a political charged Supreme Court matter:

In 2008, Sheriff David Mahoney appeared in television ad endorsing Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, a well known personal and political rival of Justice David Prosser. Mahoney also gave Abrahamson’s 2008 re-election campaign $100 dollars.

In 2008, Sheriff Mahoney helped create a program –later determined to be illegal – to give tax payer dollars to jail inmates to subsidize their bail. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said that the Sheriff’s office overstepped its authority with the program.

During the Budget Repair protests that occupied the Capitol, Mahoney refused to order Dane County Sheriff Deputies to enforce an order to keep the Capitol doors shut. Mahoney explained, “I refused to put deputy sheriffs in a position to be palace guards."

When touring the Capitol in during the occupation by pro-labor protesters in March, Mahoney was quoted in The Nation magazine as saying “I smile everyday at what I am seeing take place in this building."

When asked in an April 21, interview with liberal Madison talk-show host John “Sly” Sylvester about booing of the national anthem by counter-protesters at a Tea Party rally, Mahoney said “I’m quite confident that booing the national anthem never occurred.” But of course, the booing was caught on camera which makes it hard to deny.

From 2004-2006, Mahoney served as President of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association. As President of the state’s police union, Mahoney was quoted as saying it is a duty to “take care of those who take care of you,” and that “the job you save may be your own.” During Mahoney’s tenure as President, the WPPA endorsed Governor Jim Doyle for Governor and donated to eight Democratic campaigns and just three Republican campaigns.

Sheriff Mahoney was appointed to three separate commissions by Democrat Governor Jim Doyle between 2007 and 2008.

Without question, the appearance of Mahoney's impartiality exists.

He should recuse himself.

WI Supreme Court: Resignation?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is an embarrassment.

The fact that Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Justice David Prosser are duking it out over a physical assault incident involving them is nuts.

Calling the Court dysfunctional is being far too kind.

It's a disgrace.

The relationships between its members are toxic, and that's probably understating it.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Two agencies are investigating a claim by Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley that Justice David Prosser put her in a chokehold earlier this month - an allegation Gov. Scott Walker on Monday called extremely serious.

Asked if the reports about Prosser's behavior, if true, merited his resignation, Walker said: "I don't even want to go down that path . . . other than to say that just based on the allegations that were made, I can't overemphasize how serious I think the situation is there. Until we know what happened, I don't think it's best for anybody for me to comment on what the next step is."

Was Walker asked if the reports about Bradley's behavior, if true, merited her resignation?

That doesn't appear to be the case from the Journal Sentinel's online account.

Why wonder about Prosser resigning and not consider the possibility of Bradley resigning?

Bias? What bias?

The separate investigations are being run by the Dane County Sheriff's Office and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which oversees the state's judicial ethics code. The sheriff's investigation was launched Monday; the commission's was authorized Friday and publicly acknowledged Monday.

"After consulting with members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I have turned over the investigation into an alleged incident in the court's offices on June 13, 2011, to Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney," Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs said in a statement.

The sheriff's office in a statement acknowledged it was taking over the case, but declined further comment.

It was not clear why Tubbs would consult with members of the court on who should investigate the matter.

This is so bizarre.

Law enforcement shouldn't be meeting with the Court to determine how to go about investigating an alleged physical assault.

...Walker told Journal Sentinel reporters, editors and members of the newspaper's Editorial Board on Monday that the current court was the most dysfunctional in his memory, and that the judiciary is supposed to be the most dispassionate of the three branches of government.

"I think, again, beyond the particulars of this case . . . the fact that there appears to be an ongoing friction among justices in the court is something that has to be resolved," Walker said. "I don't know what the right answer is."

Walker raised the possibility of providing a mediator, but was cautious about any involvement from either the executive or legislative branches of government.

Walker also said "long-term, it's worth looking at" an appointed Supreme Court, instead of an elected one, in Wisconsin.

Such a change would require a change in the state constitution.

If Prosser resigned, Walker would appoint his successor.

Here we go again!

Why just talk about Prosser resigning?

If BRADLEY resigned, Walker would appoint her successor.

The anti-Prosser slant of the Journal Sentinel article continues:

The court for years has been split by ideological and personal differences.

"Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this stunning development is how, given all that we have learned about the court in recent years, how untroubling many (people) are likely to find this," said Marquette Law School professor Peter Rofes. "Entirely apart from the obvious violent nature of this act - and the fear it engendered in a female member of the court - as each day passes the people of Wisconsin have less reason to believe that there is very much legitimacy left in this incredibly important institution."

"Entirely apart from the obvious violent nature of this act - and the fear it engendered in a female member of the court"?

So, according to Marquette Law School professor Peter Rofes, Bradley is the victim here? It's a given that she was attacked by Prosser, that terrifying brute?

It certainly appears that Rofes thinks he knows what happened.

Why the assumption that Bradley's version of events is accurate?

Rofes should know better than to make such statements.

...Nationally known police practices expert Melvin L. Tucker said he couldn't figure out why the Capitol police would confer with the justices about the direction of the investigation rather than simply presenting a case to the district attorney.

"There may be justifiable reasons for it, but it doesn't sound like it's normal," said Tucker, a former FBI agent who has served as a police chief in three states and is now based in North Carolina.

"If there was probable cause that a choking actually did take place, if the victim did give a statement to that effect, you go to the prosecutor's office and proceed from there," he said.

NO KIDDING!

What's with the strange consultations? Police shouldn't be conferring with the justices about a choking. That's not how they normally handle a violent act. They should do their jobs, no special treatment or additional discussions.

This is all so weird.

Of course, what's completely normal is the Journal Sentinel serving as a mouthpiece for liberals.
__________________

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Crocker Stephenson discussed the insanity with Greta Van Susteren.

Prosser and Bradley: CHOKE

More Wisconsin Supreme Court drama...

The latest: An argument allegedly turned physical. Justice David Prosser CHOKED Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

Sounds more than a little weird, doesn't it?

The story really ticks me off.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

An argument between state Supreme Court Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley became physical earlier this month, according to sources who told the Journal Sentinel two very different stories Saturday about what occurred.

According to some sources, Prosser wrapped his hands around Bradley's neck. According to others, Bradley charged Prosser, who raised his hands to defend himself and made contact with her neck.

A joint investigation by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism first reported Saturday on the incident, stating that Prosser "grabbed" Bradley around the neck.

A source who spoke to several justices present during the incident told the Journal Sentinel that the confrontation occurred after 5:30 p.m. June 13, the day before high court's release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

At least five justices, including Prosser and Bradley, had gathered in Bradley's office and were informally discussing the decision.

The conversation grew heated, the source said, and Bradley asked Prosser to leave. Bradley was bothered by disparaging remarks Prosser had made about Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

Bradley felt Prosser "was attacking the chief justice," the source said.

Before leaving, Prosser "put his hands around her neck in what (Bradley) described as a chokehold," the source said.

"He did not exert any pressure, but his hands were around her neck," the source said.

The source said the act "was in no way playful."

But another source told the Journal Sentinel that Bradley attacked Prosser.

"She charged him with fists raised," the source said.

Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," the source said. "He blocked her."

In doing so, the source said, he made contact with Bradley's neck.

Another source said the justices were arguing over the timing of the release of the opinion, which legislative leaders had insisted they needed by June 14 because of their work on the state budget. As the justices discussed the case, Abrahamson said she didn't know whether the decision would come out this month, the source said.

At that point, Prosser said he'd lost all confidence in her leadership. Bradley then came across the room "with fists up," the source said. Prosser put up his hands to push her back.

Bradley then said she had been choked, according to the source. Another justice - the source wouldn't say who - responded, "You were not choked."

Late Saturday, Prosser issued a statement that said: "Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment."

Oh, good grief.

These accounts are so strange.

If Prosser truly choked Bradley, she should have reported the incident to the police immediately.

If Prosser assaulted Bradley, she should have pressed charges.

If this did occur as Bradley claims, it certainly would have been to her advantage to get the police involved right away. It would make her enemy, Prosser, look terrible.

But almost two weeks after the incident, we're hearing about it? Why would Bradley delay reporting being attacked? She still hasn't come forward with a comment. All we have are unnamed "sources."

That's very odd, very lame.

The justices aren't talking.

What has this "investigation" revealed?

Rumors.

If Bradley charged at Prosser with her fists raised, and Prosser needed to take defensive measures to protect himself, he should have called the police.

This is all so ridiculous.

Physical attacks between justices cannot be tolerated. There is absolutely no doubt that an individual lacking that degree of self-control is unfit to serve on the court.

Has there been a physical altercation?

We don't know.

This is idiotic.

Whatever the reality of the matter is, the justices, and the media reporting their antics, need to grow the hell up.

GROW UP!

Justices must behave.

Media shouldn't report unsourced crap.

Utterly irresponsible.

Perhaps law enforcement should be present at all times when Supreme Court justices are meeting, to maintain order.

Officers should be armed with pepper spray and stun guns. They shouldn't hesitate to use force to control the justices.
__________________

Here's more, from WISN: Report: Prosser Grabbed Female Justice By Neck During Argument

Read the original report from the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism here.

Bradley says Prosser choked her

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley issued a statement late Saturday saying that fellow Justice David Prosser choked her and disputing claims that she attacked him first.

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," she said. "Those are the facts and you can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin.

"Matters of abusive behavior in the workplace aren't resolved by competing press releases," she said.

"I'm confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace."

What I don't understand is why Bradley didn't immediately get the police involved.

Where's the criminal complaint?

I'd like to read it.

Kloppenburg Concedes

And we have a winner of the 2011 Wisconsin State Supreme Court election...

Justice David Prosser.



From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg said Tuesday that she was conceding the Supreme Court race to Justice David Prosser, ending what had been a contentious campaign that culminated in a rare statewide recount.

Kloppenburg made the concession at a Madison news conference just over a week after the state's Government Accountability Board reported that final count numbers showed Prosser with 7,006 more votes.

She said she had run a campaign that was respectful, honest and fair.

Her decision to concede is expected to pave the way for Prosser to begin a new, 10-year term on Aug. 1.

If Kloppenburg had challenged the recount, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson would have had to name a reserve judge to hear Kloppenburg's court challenge. Court observers say it is likely that Abrahamson and the reserve judge would move as quickly as possible to consider the appeal.

Kloppenburg asked for the taxpayer-financed recount - the first statewide recount in two decades - after losing by 7,316 votes in the April 5 election. Waukesha County, a key stronghold for Prosser, finished its recount last.

Kloppenburg's team had said in advance of Tuesday's decision that they would analyze the election evidence and the law before making their decision.

Though the April 5 election was officially nonpartisan, the campaign had all the feel of a partisan race: conservatives tended to support Prosser, while liberals backed Kloppenburg.

Wisconsinites knew Prosser was the winner weeks and weeks ago. We knew that before hundreds and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were pissed away.

Today, JoAnne Kloppenburg conceded, she gave in to reality and admitted that she lost the election.

However, she did it in the most graceless way imaginable, whining about the mountain of "anomalies and irregularities and more" that allegedly tainted the results.

I suppose the whining was necessary to justify her demand to put the state through the idiotic recount.

I'm surprised her announcement came as early in the day as it did. I expected her to remain true to form and speak at around 4:00 PM, waiting until the last minute to meet the deadline on challenging the recount results.

Did Kloppenburg think the late morning announcement would make her appear more reasonable and less politically-motivated than staging another late afternoon drama?

It didn't.

I thought it was interesting that during the Q & A of her news conference she answered a question that wasn't asked.

Kloppenburg stated that she wasn't a union puppet, that she made her own decisions and was not doing the bidding of the union thugs.

Maybe she's not their puppet. Maybe her commitment to their extreme Leftist agenda is deeply entrenched.

Whatever.

Bottom line: She was content with sticking it to Wisconsin taxpayers for her ridiculous statewide recount but was not willing to foot the bill to challenge those results.

She did concede.

The election is over but this Kloppenburg news conference will live on in Wisconsin political history.

Let it be a lesson to other candidates.

"Wisconsin voters have spoken and I am grateful for, and humbled by, their confidence and trust."

"I'm ecstatic. My supporters are ecstatic, and I'm looking forward to becoming a justice on August 1st."

"We ran a campaign that was focused on being positive and respectful and, and winning; and we did win, and we're confident that the margin will hold."

"You know, the numbers showed that we won and we are gratified to have that victory in hand."

--JoANNE KLOPPENBURG

Kloppenburg Deadline

The clock is ticking.

The deadline for JoAnne Kloppenburg to file a lawsuit challenging the final results of the absolutely senseless recount in her loss to Justice David Prosser in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race is today.

What will she do?

Will she call Justice Prosser and finally concede?

Does Kloppenburg have the decency to do the right thing?

Short answer: NO.

I would love to say I'm wrong. Later today, I would love to say I was wrong about Kloppenburg.
______________

UPDATE: Kloppenburg concedes.

Technically, I'm wrong.

Kloppenburg did have the decency to concede.

However, she did it in the most graceless way imaginable, whining about the mountain of "anomalies and irregularities and more" that allegedly tainted the results.

I suppose the whining was necessary to justify her demand to put the state through the idiotic recount.

At least she did concede.

Prosser Declared Winner

Justice David Prosser has won the election for Wisconsin Supreme Court - AGAIN.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

State elections officials on Monday certified the results of the recount of the April 5 election for state Supreme Court, declaring that Justice David Prosser has been re-elected to another 10-year term on the court by 7,004 votes.

"I look forward to taking the oath of office and continuing to serve in a fair and independent manner as a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court," Prosser said a statement.

Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg asked for the recount after narrowly losing to Prosser.

She now has the option of suing over the results if she wants to contest the election. Any legal action must be started by May 31.

Kloppenburg campaign manager Melissa Mulliken last week said Kloppenburg would spend the coming days deciding what to do. Kloppenburg has portrayed the election as including widespread anomalies.

In certifying the recount, Government Accountability Board Chairman Thomas Barland disputed that characterization.

“It was not a surprise that minor mistakes were discovered, investigated and corrected,” he said. “This happens in all elections.”

It's time to pull out the JoAnne "I'm Ecstatic" Kloppenburg victory speech.

Kloppenburg's decision to declare victory was one of the worst moves ever.

It showed she lacks any sense of good judgment and possesses no gravitas whatsoever.



Then came the absolutely futile recount.

Now, with the certified results of the recount essentially the same as the certified results of the election, Kloppenburg has another decision to make.

Will she and her allies continue to stick it to the taxpayers and drag down the state of Wisconsin?

Will she obstruct the will of the people?

Does Kloppenburg have the decency to finally concede?

If her past behavior is any indication, then no, she won't concede.

It will be beyond disgraceful if Kloppenburg sues, in effect attempting to disenfranchise over 7,000 voters in the hope of manufacturing a victory.

Bottom line: Kloppenburg's concession speech is long, long overdue.

If she won't concede, let's hope she's clueless enough to flee the state, thinking that would be an appropriate way to handle her defeat.
_________________


STATEMENT OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DAVID PROSSER, JR:

"I am grateful that the final results of the April 5th election have been confirmed today. I want to thank the good people of Wisconsin for their confidence in me. I look forward to taking the oath of office and continuing to serve in a fair and independent manner as a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

I also want to thank the literally hundreds of local election officials and volunteers across the state's 72 counties who spent thousands of hours of their time in this recount. Their dedication went well beyond their normal "call of duty" and I know the state's residents who they serve share my appreciation for their great efforts in producing an accurate final result."

Will Kloppenburg challenge the "accurate final result"?

Not if she has an ounce of integrity.

WI Assembly Approves Voter ID Bill

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The Assembly late Wednesday approved requiring people to show photo ID at the polls, putting the measure on a fast track to becoming law. The Senate is expected to sign off on the plan Tuesday.

The move comes when drivers are about to have to present more documentation to get their licenses and wait longer to get them.

The Assembly passed the bill 60-35 amid shouts from a small group of protesters in the viewing gallery.

"Welcome to Wisconsin, Jim Crow!" one of them shouted. The Republican-run Assembly quickly adjourned as the protesters chanted "Shame!" and were led out of the gallery by police officers.

Democrats Peggy Krusick of Milwaukee and Tony Staskunas of West Allis joined all Republicans in approving the bill.

In a change that's separate from the photo ID legislation, drivers will soon have to present more documents proving their identity to get licenses under a federal anti-terrorism law. And instead of receiving their licenses when they visit a Division of Motor Vehicles office, they will get them a week to 10 days later in the mail.

Gov. Scott Walker is a longtime supporter of requiring photo ID to vote. His fellow Republicans have pushed the idea for a decade but have been blocked by Democrats.

...On the Assembly floor Wednesday, Republicans argued that requiring ID at the polls would prevent voter fraud and boost confidence in elections.

"That is a travesty to have your vote stolen from you," said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon).

Democrats said the measure would have no effect on voter fraud while making it harder for poor, elderly, minority and rural residents to vote. They said that no widespread voter fraud has ever been uncovered in Wisconsin.

Finally!

The Democrats are powerless to block the effort to make voter fraud more difficult at polling places in Wisconsin.

They will be forced to use other routes, like frivolous recounts and inventing anomalies, to disenfranchise Wisconsinites.

The Democrats will have to revise their playbook.

Isn't it funny Dems "said that no widespread voter fraud has ever been uncovered in Wisconsin"?

That's exactly what they intend to claim has taken place in Waukesha County in the Supreme Court race.

Kloppenburg, Concede!

JoAnne "I'm ecstatic" Kloppenburg has wasted the taxpayers' money by dragging Wisconsin through a ridiculous recount. It was a selfish act.

The woman did not have the good judgment nor the strength of character to stand up to the Democrats and her union allies and refuse to participate in this senseless, joke of a recount.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

With the recount in the April 5 Supreme Court race now complete in every county but Waukesha, JoAnne Kloppenburg has sliced a mere 355 votes off Justice David Prosser's lead of 7,316 votes, underscoring the extreme odds against Kloppenburg emerging victorious in the fiercely contested judicial contest.

In effect, Kloppenburg would have to gain 6,962 votes in one county - Waukesha - after gaining a tiny fraction of that in the recount of all the state's other counties.

In those 71 counties recounted so far, Kloppenburg has made a net pick-up of one vote for every 3,873 votes cast.

In Waukesha County, which Prosser won overwhelmingly, she would have to make a net pick-up of one vote for every 18 votes cast.

And that math actually understates the improbability of a successful outcome for Kloppenburg because about 30% of Waukesha County has already completed the recount process. So far, there's a net gain of 18 votes for Prosser, according to the latest figures posted Monday night by the state's Government Accountability Board.

As for the Waukesha recount changing the outcome at this point, "the probability is not close to zero - it is zero," said Ken Mayer, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who is a consultant to the Prosser recount team. "It just isn't going to happen."

The Kloppenburg campaign said Monday that judgment is premature.

Oh, good Lord!

This is insane.

JOANNE KLOPPENBURG LOST. JUSTICE DAVID PROSSER WON.

I wonder what Kloppenburg's concession speech will be like.

She can't concede with grace. That possibility went out the window when she made taxpayers' foot the bill for her utterly pointless recount. Her accusations of "anomalies" and "irregularities" couldn't be sleazier.

"I get the math," said Melissa Mulliken, who ran Kloppenburg's campaign. But she said the Kloppenburg campaign believes there are enough serious questions about the way ballots were handled - she called them "significant anomalies" - that it will make a decision after the recount is over about whether to pursue a legal appeal.

...[Prosser attorney Daniel] Kelly said he was concerned Kloppenburg would challenge the results no matter what, leading to months of appeals. Prosser's seat on the court will become temporarily vacant if a winner isn't declared by Aug. 1. There are six other justices on the court, and they are often evenly split over the most contentious issues.

Kloppenburg said it was premature to say whether she would challenge the results of the recount in court.

"Premature"?

I will be so pissed if Kloppenburg appeals the results. I am preparing to be pissed.

THAT IS NOT WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE.

Imagine the news conference when Kloppenburg announces she will appeal. Picture her at a podium crowded with microphones. Can you see her face and hear her voice as she says she will not give up AGAIN?

Oh, my God!

Although I'm sure Democrats and union bosses are pulling puppet Kloppenburg's strings, I still blame her for this waste. SHE is responsible for the circus. SHE showed terrible judgment. SHE lacks decency. SHE is not wise.

It does prove Wisconsin voters made the right choice. Without a shadow of a doubt, Kloppenburg is not fit to sit on the State Supreme Court.

Kloppenburg, Stop This Recount!

Kenneth R. Mayer, PhD., professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a consultant to the Justice David Prosser Recount Team, writes that it's time for JoAnne "I'm ecstatic" Kloppenburg to put an end to the recount.

The recount is nearing completion in the contested Wisconsin Supreme Court election between incumbent David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. The initial canvas showed Prosser ahead by 7,316 votes, out of nearly 1.5 million cast. More than three-quarters of the state has completed its recount, and the net change has been only 225 in Kloppenburg’s favor, using data compiled by the Prosser campaign. The GAB’s own data shows that with nearly 80% of the vote recounted, Prosser is ahead by more than 25,000 votes. It is time to recognize that there is no point in continuing.

It has actually been clear from the beginning that the recount would not change the result: Prosser’s lead in the initial count was 30 times larger than any margin that had been reversed in any statewide election that I have been able to find in the last 30 years. The initial margins in the 2004 Washington Gubernatorial Election and the 2008 Minnesota Senate election – both of which were reversed after a recount and litigation – were, respectively, 261 votes and 215 votes. Every statistical model of recounts has concluded that the chances of a reversal depends, more than anything, on the margin of victory. Absent the kind of irregularities that simply have not happened in this election, a reversal of a 7,000+ margin would be historically unprecedented.

There are, so far, a handful of wards (what Wisconsin calls precincts) that have produced anomalous changes: one ward where Kloppenburg picked up 67 votes because of an omission in the initial count; one town where the absentee ballots of 18 cloistered nuns were tossed because they were not properly witnessed; one ward where 79 ballots were accidentally left in a clerk’s office; one ward where Prosser picked up 15 votes when the original totals for both candidates were adjusted.

But nearly all of the wards – more than 70% --show either no change at all or a net change of 1 vote or less – more than 90%. It is simply not possible for Kloppenburg to pick up enough votes to change the result. The average change has been about 0.1 votes per ward. Again, this has been clear from the beginning, but with more than three-quarters of the votes recounted, the possibilities are so remote that a reversal, by itself, could be evidence of a significant irregularity.

As of today, Kloppenburg would have to reverse more than 7,000 of the remaining votes to win. This is a rate hundreds of times greater than the error rate so far, which has been steady at about 1 change per 4,000 votes.

Kloppenburg may be pinning her hopes on challenging votes from the City of Brookfield, where a failure to report 15,000 votes on election night led to an initial (and wholly unofficial) Associated Press calculation that Kloppenburg had won by 204 votes. She held a press conference where she declared victory. But there was in fact no real anomaly here: it was simply a human error in which vote totals were not conveyed to the county election official on election night. Once the votes were reported, and counted, it was clear that the AP report was simply an error. To claim fraud here would be an impossible stretch, elevating press reports to an official status that they do not, and cannot, have.

Kloppenburg asked for a recount because she said it was important to have confidence in the electoral process. What the recount process has shown is that the election process in Wisconsin, for all of the potential for human error, is extremely accurate.

And the advantage of stopping the recount now, is that we can go back to making jokes about elections in Illinois.

As Mayer says, IT'S OVER.

Kloppenburg Rejects Nuns' Ballots

JoAnne Kloppenburg and her campaign are disenfranchising nuns. NUNS!

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The recount for the state Supreme Court race has come to this: Votes from nuns have been thrown out.

The twist in the race between Justice David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg came during the recount in Sauk County. There, ballots of Cistercian nuns from the Valley of Our Lady Monastery in Prairie du Sac were rejected.

The nuns live a contemplative, monastic life and support themselves by baking and distributing altar breads, according to their website.

On Friday, during the recount, it was noted that witness signatures were missing from 18 absentee ballots from the Town of Sumpter, where votes from the monastery are counted.

"Eighteen applications did not have a witness signature," said Alene Bolin, assistant corporation counsel for Sauk County. "I don't think all 18 were from the monastery. I think it has turned into, there were 18 nuns but I do remember one of the ballots was not from the convent."

"They're cloistered nuns," Bolin said. "So the clerk (Donna Ziegler) dropped off an envelope with all the absentee ballots and applications with them. On the day of the election, she picked them up and dropped them off at the polling place. The absentee ballots were opened there and counted. During the recount it was discovered that there was no witness signature."

Because canvassers were unable to match the actual ballots to the voter, they took all 24 absentee ballots from the Town of Sumpter and randomly drew 18, which were then set aside and not counted. Of those ballots, Prosser had 14 while Kloppenburg had four.

The Prosser campaign made two appeals to have the ballots counted, including early Wednesday, but they were turned down by the board of canvassers, Bolin said.

Will tossing the votes of the nuns change the outcome of the election?

No, but that's not the point.

Considering the Democrats are always yapping about counting every vote and insisting that measures like voter photo ID are an unreasonable burden it looks horrible for them to reject the votes of the cloistered nuns.

Does Kloppenburg really want to be remembered for throwing out the nuns' votes?

I suppose it could be worse. I assume the nuns weren't harassed or threatened by Kloppenburg's allies, the union thugs. Their ballots were discarded but no physical intimidation took place.

The case of the Cistercian nuns from the Valley of Our Lady Monastery in Prairie du Sac is just another proud moment for JoAnne "I'm ecstatic" Kloppenburg.

Isn't it great our tax dollars are being spent to toss out the ballots of nuns in this idiotic recount?

Wonderful.
________________

UPDATE:

Statement of Brian Schimming, director, Justice Prosser's Recount Effort, regarding the disenfranchisement of votes of 18 nuns from the Valley of our Lady Monastery in Prairie du Sac, Sauk County:

"While we have been reluctant to make public comments during the recount period, the Kloppenburg campaign's attack on the votes of 18 nuns from the Valley of our Lady Monastery in Prairie du Sac is wrong at best and totally reprehensible at worst.

"This recount is costing Wisconsin taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars already. There is to date not one shred of evidence whatsoever that it will change the outcome of the election. To make this extremely costly and sorry spectacle even worse by challenging the legitimate votes of 18 nuns at a monastery is a breathtaking abuse of the recount process."

"I would simply ask Ms. Kloppenburg to act at the most basic level of decency; apologize to the 18 nuns who reside at the monastery for her campaign's interference with their right to vote, withdraw her objection and ask that the ballots be reinstated."

It's a legitimate and appropriate request.

Unfortunately, to date, Kloppenburg has not exhibited the character or the class that would lead me to believe she will do the right thing.

Vote Changes in Statewide Recounts

The MacIver Institute offers this chart of "Vote Changes in Statewide Recounts in the United States Since 1980 and Margin in Prosser v. Kloppenburg 2011."



What is JoAnne Kloppenburg thinking?

She and her union allies certainly can't think this joke of a recount is going to endear the Leftists' agenda to Wisconsin taxpayers.

What a massive waste of resources!

This recount is so outrageous that the classless Kloppenburg joins Brett Favre in becoming a verb.

For example, the verb "favre":

When lead character Cleveland Brown, a baseball star when he was in high school, gives his retired #9 jersey to his son, Cleveland Jr., the elder Cleveland takes a shot at Brett Favre.

CLEVELAND BROWN JR.: Wow! Number 9! I thought when you left they retired it for good.

CLEVELAND BROWN: I'm Brett Favre-ing it, except I'm not being a public jag off about it.

It took Favre years to become a verb, going in and out of retirement repeatedly.

Kloppenburg managed to achieve that level of notoriety in just weeks. Quite an accomplishment.

Kloppenburg and Judicial Code of Conduct

Media Trackers asks: Did Kloppenburg Violate The Wisconsin Judicial Code of Conduct?

During JoAnne Kloppenburg's press conference last Wednesday, she accused Justice David Prosser of meeting with Governor Scott Walker after the April 5, 2011, Supreme Court election.

According to Media Trackers, that may violate the Judicial Code of Conduct.

Kloppenburg made the allegation during her press conference to announce her intention for a state-wide recount, but she provided no evidence to back it up. Both Walker and Prosser deny the meeting took place.

Kloppenburg’s campaign spokeswoman, Melissa Mulliken, said she had “been in touch with two or three people with knowledge of the meeting.” However, she refused to name names.

The irony is rich. During the campaign leading up to this election the news media and the Left continued to draw focus on the 2008 controversy around Justice Michael Gableman for what was at worst a misleading campaign ad written by campaign staffers. But Kloppenburg campaign’s apparent overt factual falsehood received scant media attention, and no one seems to be raising the question of whether Kloppenburg violated judicial rules.

...Is Kloppenburg still a judicial candidate? By requesting a recount she maintains that status.

Prosser outright denies her assertion that he met with Walker, as does Walker.

Kloppenburg has not repudiated the claim, nor provided evidence to prove it.

So how does the SRC 60.06(3) not apply?

It begs the question of why the Judicial Commission is not investigating the Kloppenburg matter. Where is the media? Where are the complaints? Where is the scrutiny?

Good questions.

Kloppenburg: Statewide Recount (Video)

Here's the full video of JoAnne Kloppenburg's statement announcing her decision to request that the taxpayers of Wisconsin pay for a recount in her failed election bid against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser.



Nauseating.

Even the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board takes a surprisingly reasonable stance on Kloppenburg's call to waste the state's resources.

JoAnne Kloppenburg certainly had the right to ask for a statewide recount on Wednesday.

But we had hoped that she wouldn't - and the state would be better off if she hadn't.

We understand the motivation. The final county-by-county canvassing of the state Supreme Court election revealed that Justice David Prosser won a narrow victory, a reflection of how polarizing the new governor and his policies have become. The heat generated by the controversy over those policies most likely spurred the significant turnout for a spring nonpartisan election and a 7,316-vote win for Prosser - less than 0.5% of the 1.5 million votes cast.

That's slim, but it's not likely that a statewide recount will change the outcome. Were it a margin in the hundreds of votes, perhaps, but Kloppenburg has to recognize that it's not.

The state Government Accountability Board says it is ready for a recount; the board had anticipated that one would be requested. But it is already requesting some $40,000 extra to deal with a possible 16 recall elections anticipated as a result of some senators leaving the state to avoid a vote on Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining proposals and other senators voting for them.

Earlier, the GAB said a statewide recount in the Supreme Court race might cost as much as $1 million. Given that the state is already scrambling in its current budget to make ends meet and that the next budget won't be any prettier, this is an expense the state can ill afford.

...Kloppenburg might have simply narrowed her recount request to Waukesha County.

But, again, this is her right. We urge the GAB to conduct the recount openly, transparently and in such a fashion that there is no room for doubt. And we urge all the parties involved to allow the GAB to do its job efficiently and without undue interference.

Kloppenburg's decision to burden the state with the cost of what the Journal Sentinel calls an "unnecessary" recount, meaning the Democrats/unions' decision to burden the taxpayers, is utterly irresponsible.

Think of all the ways that money could be better spent.

Kloppenburg's incredibly poor judgment is on display.

It was there when she made her laughable victory speech. Here it is again.

It's unfortunate that Kloppenburg doesn't have the strength of character and the decency to do the right thing.

Having the right to do something doesn't make it right.

Taxpayers of Wisconsin, please join me in a resounding "SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!"

KLOPPENBURG: STATEWIDE RECOUNT

JoAnne Kloppenburg will call for a STATEWIDE RECOUNT.

The Wisconsin taxpayers DO NOT thank you, Kloppenburg.

What a waste of resources!

Kloppenburg is a union puppet. And we know the unions don't care about Wisconsin's taxpayers.

She's either spineless and doing the bidding of the unions, or she's utterly irrational and out of touch with reality.

"Today my campaign is asking the Government Accountablity Board to conduct a statewide recount."

Disgusting.

"A recount benefits everyone involved in this election."

WHAT?

It sure as hell doesn't benefit the taxpayers!

7,316 votes! That's a huge margin.

Dragging the taxpayers through this makes me sick.

Kloppenburg yapping about fraud is a joke. Leftists have done all they can to permit voter fraud in Wisconsin.

Long lines at the polls, photocopied ballots, blah, blah, blah.

When Kloppenburg was asked if she still felt that she won the election, she paused for a long time. She finally said she felt like a winner in a number of ways. Really lame.

Video.



Transcript

REPORTER: Last time you had a press conference, you indicated you were the winner. Do you still feel that you are the winner of the election?

KLOPPENBURG: (15-second pause, staring off into space) How I feel? I feel that I have, um, been a winner in any number of ways. Whether I will have earned the most votes in this election is something to be determined by the recount.

What a disgrace! Truly a disgrace!

Kloppenburg could not have handled her response to that question more awkwardly.

Her supporters had to be thinking, "This is uncomfortable."

Kloppenburg said when she was ahead by a couple hundred votes, her opponent's campaign cried "voter fraud!" She said she has never suggested there was fraud.

Then why have a special investigation? Of course, she's talking about fraud.

The woman contradicts herself within the same news conference.

This is just pissing away tax dollars.

If the unions and the Leftists are looking for a way to fire up the taxpayers of Wisconsin, they've found it.

I predict Obama will lose Wisconsin in 2012.

Brett Healy and John Batchelor

Wisconsin continues to receive the national spotlight.

Brett Healy of the MacIver Institute was a guest on The John Batchelor Show Monday night.

Healy discusses Judge Maryann Sumi and the open-records case before her, as well as developments on the recall elections in Wisconsin. He also talks about the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, Justice David Prosser's victory, and Scott Walker's future.

Listen to the podcast or download the show here, Monday, 4/18/11 - Batchelor 9pm (Wisconsin topic begins at 18:30).