Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Why Does The Wisconsin Recount Make Me Nervous?

    Why Does The Wisconsin Recount Make Me Nervous?

    I know there is no logical way David Prosser could lose 7316 votes in the recount.

    But stuff like this gets me very nervous, via JSOnline:

    The state Supreme Court recount got off to a wobbly start here Wednesday.

    After more than a half-hour of meticulous instructions and ground rules relayed by Waukesha County’s chief canvasser, retired Judge Robert G. Mawdsley, questions were raised about the very first bag of ballots to be counted, from the Town of Brookfield.

    As canvassers and tabulators compared a numbered seal on a bag with the number recorded for that bag by a town election inspector who prepared the paperwork on election night, the numbers didn’t match.

    “What a great way to start,” one official tabulator said.

    Observers from the campaigns of Justice David Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg both agreed, however, that the error seemed to be in the inspector’s use of a “2” instead of a “3.” Numbers on the sealing tag and on the bag did match. Both sides and the Board of Canvassers agreed that the bag should be opened and the votes counted.

    I hope the Republicans in Wisconsin are not taking anything for granted.  Check every car trunk before the vehicle gets within 400 feet of a recount location.

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:

    Comments


    If Kloppenburg had any class, she would've conceded just as quickly as she declared victory.

    If.

    I don't believe Kloppenburg has EVER been accused of having class.

    @ruffages . . . you can say that again!

    For example, during the campaign she twice falsely accused David Prosser of having "prejudged matters that are likely to come before the court" as reported by Politi-Fact Wisc. here:

    "In a videotaped interview on March 16, 2011, Kloppenburg declared that Prosser had "prejudged matters that are likely to come before the court."

    She repeated the charge in a debate six days later, saying: "I, unlike my opponent, will approach cases with an open mind and without having prejudged the matters that come before the court."

    When her campaign was challenged over the statements, they came up small indeed:

    "We asked Kloppenburg campaign spokeswoman Melissa Mulliken for evidence that Prosser has prejudged matters that are likely to be brought to the high court — more specifically, which matters. Mulliken said there were none. Kloppenburg’s allegation against Prosser, she said, was made as a broader statement."

    Even though Politi-Fact Wisc somehow laughably turned that false charge into a "barely true," it is very obvious that JoAnne Kloppenburg twice displayed a reckless tendency for making false statements about her opponent.

    And here is a link to a Wisconsin ethics rule for attorneys that arguably has application to just such a situation (see page 43):

    "SCR 20:8.2 Judicial and legal officials.

    (a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

    (b) A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the code of judicial conduct."

    I'd like to hear her explanation for why that rule does not apply to her statements!

    As you said, @ruffages no class.

    "I know there is no logical way David Prosser could lose 7316 votes in the recount."

    Uh why? You're talking about .5% of all votes cast.


     
     0 
     
     0
    jakee308 | April 27, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    Democrat + ballot box full of votes OR blank ballots == Democrat candidate elected with MANDATE!!

    Doesn't anyone ask themselves WHY the Democrat party is so vehemently against well made and programmed electronic or mechanical machines that have tamper proof systems that provide for voters being shown what votes they have actually cast (those are all possible here in the 21ST century and 50 years of computing) AND voters being required to identify themselves when they vote?

    Republicans have NEVER voiced any concern over any of those safeguards and in fact been the promoters.

    Yet the Libs always say Republicans steal votes?!


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend