Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Reader Poll – Will Kloppenburg Contest The Recount In Court? / Update – Prosser Wins By 7006

    Reader Poll – Will Kloppenburg Contest The Recount In Court? / Update – Prosser Wins By 7006

    As reported yesterday, David Prosser is on track to win the recount over JoAnne Kloppenburg.  It is possible that the Wisconsin GAB will report the final results today, and if it does, I’ll update the post.  As of now, it looks like Prosser will win by a margin of approximately 7000 votes (as compared to 7316 after the canvass).

    All this time, effort and money netted Kloppenburg a few hundred votes, in line with historical experience in statewide recounts.

    Kloppenburg will have 5 business days after the last county completes and reports its recount within which to challenge the results in court, so that likely puts us at the end of next week.

    We know that Team Kloppenburg has made a lot of noise, none of which is justified, about “ballot bag security.”  But surely Team Kloppenburg knows that this is all smoke and no fire.

    But what will she do?  Will she or won’t she?  The poll is open until 10 a.m. Eastern on Monday, May 23.

    If Kloppenburg concedes over the weekend, post a comment or e-mail me.  I’ll be anxiously waiting!



    Update: h/t reader Trochilus – final recount total, Prosser wins by 7006. Steve Eggleston has all the details.

    ——————————————–
    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


    @Connie, you ask a very good question . . .

    "Where would K obtain funding for a court battle, even presuming the objective is to delay seating Prosser?"

    The answer, I think, may be dependent on the motivation of whoever has been bankrolling her, especially their motivation going forward, now that she has so convincingly lost the recount — as was fully expected.

    The State of Wisconsin bankrolled the overall cost of that recount, which must have been more than mildly irritating to a significant percentage of the state's citizens, and to some extent (I would guess) regardless of party affiliation. I'd also speculate (and I think justifiably) that an even higher percentage of the people of Wisconsin would be downright irritated if she now chose to initiate litigation to keep this going, ignoring what can only be termed the decisive outcome of her "taxpayer-funded" recall.

    That, in a nutshell, is why I asked the question above about the somewhat curious paucity of Wisconsin-based public opinion polls during the post-election period.

    I am sure both she and Justice Prosser have each had a fundraising organization in place to pay for their attorneys, other paid staff assigned to recall duties, such as communications personnel, reimbursement costs made to volunteers, and any other legitimate incidental expenditures associated with the recall to date.

    I am surprised that reporters have not demanded to know who is contributing, especially to her fund, given the fact that there was virtually no chance at all of her prevailing in the recount. Why hasn't any reporter written a story about the bankrolling of this annoying "exercise in futility" on her part?

    I don't know the law in Wisconsin, but in New Jersey election funds are subject to mandatory reporting requirements, and very quickly (in accordance with fixed reporting schedule requirements) become a matter of public record. We don't elect judges here in NJ, but I would think that the reporting requirements for judges might even be (or perhaps ought to be) more stringent than for other candidates.

    If, for example, a significant percentage of her contributors were outsiders, or people or organizations normally associated with Washington-based or federal candidacies, I think that would be a big story, especially if there were a suggestion that those hitherto associated with the bankrolling of, say, Barack Obama, just as an example, had suddenly taken up an inexplicable interest in helping to bankroll nonstarter recall expenses, and especially dilatory litigation tactics being employed to frustrate the seating of a state Supreme Court justice in the State of Wisconsin!

    So your question is certainly legitimate. And, there may be an answer out there that would be very enlightening to the people of Wisconsin, as they patiently wait for JoAnne Kloppenburg to start behaving in a reasonable manner.

    If the evidence suggests she is doing what she is doing essentially at the behest of, or serving the interests of money manipulators behind the scenes, the people certainly deserve to know that as well.

    One thing is for certain . . . to date, she has displayed a singular lack of good judgment.

    Connie:

    K'burg will get money from several Union sources: AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and SEIU–all of which have significant (that is, life-or-death) interests in the benefit-reform legislation now held up by a kangaroo in Madison.

    If K'burg sues, thus delaying Prosser's 8/1 seating, SCOWI will be a 3-3 tie on the question of that legislation, which means that the lower court's ruling is affirmed. Since the lower court in this instance is the Madison-based Court of Appeals, the informed guess is that the ruling will favor the Unions.

    Wisconsin is significant for at least two reasons. First, it is a 'purple' State. Second, it is the "home" of the Progressive movement (the UW-Madison was full of them in the early 1900's.) It's sorta like Jerusalem is to Israel–a sine qua non of the Left.

    (corrected inks)

    Ann Althouse opines here, in part:

    "So Kloppenburg failed to win a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an election that focused on the budget-repair bill, but she could try, by initiating a futile lawsuit about the election, to affect the way the Wisconsin Supreme Court decides the budget case and to affect it in a way that is contrary to what the voters voted for."

    I commented, in part:

    "At some level and at a bare minimum, this sounds in abuse of process. Her object at this point is clearly not to win, nor is it any longer (as she once claimed) pursuing this in order to assure that all votes are counted.

    She seems now to be focused only on accomplishing an improper purpose, one that would be collateral to the proper object of the court process that she is considering pursuing, and, moreover, one that, further, is prima facie offensive to the proper operation of the system of justice.

    If she files suit, she will arguably be seeking to prevent Justice Prosser from being sworn in for the new term beginning on August 1st, and thereby to possibly substantially affect the outcome of the litigation!

    Not only did she waste valuable state resources by insisting on a recount she could not win, and thereby politically commit "suicide-by-recount", but she now appears to be giving serious consideration to stepping right over the line in order to further disrupt the orderly transitional process of the Court, and possibly seeking thereby to affect the outcome of litigation!

    I cannot believe at this point that she is doing this all on her own initiative. In Wisconsin, are judicial candidates required to disclose all contributions, including any contributors to her legal fund to pay for any such litigation?


    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