No class in WI as teachers protest union-busting governor

[Olo401]

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._2168284_n.jpg

That's a whole lotta swing in just six months..

[Eliseos]

Just heard on the radio that Prosser just picked up over 7000 votes. One (heavily Republican) city apparently didn't report their votes until a review today found the error.

[Alarial]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Eliseos]

http://www.jsonline.mobi/119424759.h...d&dc=smart&c=y

Source.

[Alarial]

Oh I wasn't saying I doubted you, I was saying it sounds awful suspicious.

[Caiyuo]

Olo, when you mentioned the recall threshold of 7500 votes, is that for an immediate recall or after a year's time?

[Olo401]

Olo, when you mentioned the recall threshold of 7500 votes, is that for an immediate recall or after a year's time?

That's the recount threshold, not recall - it's actually triggered is the margin of victory is within .5% (which in this case was about 7500 votes), and it's not an automatic thing one of the candidates would have to request a recount if the margin is within that. A full state-wide recount can still be requested if the margin is too high (right now it's about 7000 votes), but the candidate rather than the state would have to pay the full costs of the recount.

Anyways, here the announcement: http://elections.wispolitics.com/201...0-pm-news.html

(They forgot to include ~14,300 votes from a city with a registered voter population of ~26,900.. that's a 53.2% turnout which I believe is far higher than the state average in this election)

And here's the statement from the county official(s): http://elections.wispolitics.com/201...gizes-for.html


Edit: Apparently this county official has a history of suspicious activity and/or incompetence..

- In 2006, when the new electronic machines were first used : http://suggest.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=11008&locid=122
- In 2010, just before the primaries : http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/100890299.html
... and then after the general election : http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/114014589.html ; http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/100595954.html

Also there's a key line in the story above with the official statements from the county:

"Nickolaus said she failed to properly save a spreadsheet after inputting the Brookfield numbers Election Night, leading to the error. Once she ran the report to show the aggregate numbers for the county, she assumed incorrectly the Brookfield numbers were included."

The problem with this? The voting machine software doesn't use Excel - it uses Access, which automatically saves whenever an entry is CHANGED. There is no failing to properly save bullshit.

[Atreides]

that county had a 63% turnout in the gubenatorial election but yea, people are finding it a little too convenient that now Prosser is magically in the lead, and by just over the amount of votes that would have triggered a recount. I mean really? Where is Waukesha County, Zimbabwe?

[Cantih]

that county had a 63% turnout in the gubenatorial election but yea, people are finding it a little too convenient that now Prosser is magically in the lead, and by just over the amount of votes that would have triggered a recount. I mean really? Where is Waukesha County, Zimbabwe?

Iran!

[Talint]

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight will be able to give a clear analysis if the numbers are believable in the next few days, I'm sure.

Even for as someone as cynical as me, I would like to think that there's no foul play involved; and if it is, it's isolated.

[shiarua]

That's the recount threshold, not recall - it's actually triggered is the margin of victory is within .5% (which in this case was about 7500 votes), and it's not an automatic thing one of the candidates would have to request a recount if the margin is within that. A full state-wide recount can still be requested if the margin is too high (right now it's about 7000 votes), but the candidate rather than the state would have to pay the full costs of the recount.

Anyways, here the announcement: http://elections.wispolitics.com/201...0-pm-news.html

(They forgot to include ~14,300 votes from a city with a registered voter population of ~26,900.. that's a 53.2% turnout which I believe is far higher than the state average in this election)

And here's the statement from the county official(s): http://elections.wispolitics.com/201...gizes-for.html


Edit: Apparently this county official has a history of suspicious activity and/or incompetence..

- In 2006, when the new electronic machines were first used : http://suggest.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=11008&locid=122
- In 2010, just before the primaries : http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/100890299.html
... and then after the general election : http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/114014589.html ; http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/100595954.html

Also there's a key line in the story above with the official statements from the county:
The problem with this? The voting machine software doesn't use Excel - it uses Access, which automatically saves whenever an entry is CHANGED. There is no failing to properly save bullshit.

The unofficial totals reported to the AP had absolutely nothing to do with errors with voting machines. Additionally, you have a Democrat on the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers saying that the numbers are legitimate.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...119410124.html

'We went over everything'

But at the news conference with Nickolaus, Ramona Kitzinger, the Democrat on the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers, said: "We went over everything and made sure all the numbers jibed up and they did. Those numbers jibed up, and we're satisfied they're correct."
As a Democrat, she said, "I'm not going to stand here and tell you something that's not true."
Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas, who sat in on Nickolaus' news conference, said voters can be confident in the results because "all the votes are in that office. If anyone wants to look at them and verify, they can."
Kristine Schmidt, the clerk in the city of Brookfield, said in a separate interview that she shared the results with the news media on election night.
She said she also sent the results twice to the county. After the first results were sent she said the county requested a second set of data because they wanted results tabulated in a certain format with fewer columns.
"We sent it to the county and called the county to make sure they got it," Schmidt said.
Nickolaus explained that when she got Brookfield's results the second time in the correct format, she failed to save it. So when she totaled the results for the unofficial final report Tuesday, Brookfield's total was not included and she didn't realize it.
She discovered the error Wednesday when she transferred her data to a state computer program for the canvassers' review. Brookfield's results showed a zero. The Board of Canvassers started its work at noon Wednesday, but Nickolaus said she didn't report the major blunder because everything had to be verified first.
Nickolaus said the problem had nothing to do with her election system, which has been criticized as outdated. Her election operation was the subject of a county audit last year after complaints were leveled that she was not cooperative with information technology specialists who wanted to check the system's integrity and backup.
The audit concluded that while the clerk's system generally complies with state and federal guidelines and accuracy of election totals was not at issue, Nickolaus should improve security and backup procedures.

Also: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...119449719.html

[bigrougabagel]

I am suspect at anyone who uses the word jibed more than once in any sound byte.

[Caiyuo]

Bumping but does anyone know what's happening or happened with the election? Last I saw the recall effort has signatures for up to 5 senators, but no idea what's going on with the Prosser/Kloppenberg recount or if there was one.

[archibaldcrane]

Bumping but does anyone know what's happening or happened with the election? Last I saw the recall effort has signatures for up to 5 senators, but no idea what's going on with the Prosser/Kloppenberg recount or if there was one.

There's a recount in progress, I don't think anyone expects the first count to be overturned, Prosser should hold his seat. Not sure of the status of legal challenges to the budget bill.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Caiyuo]

Balls. Thanks for the update.

[shiarua]

Other states have also been taking Walker's lead and curbing collective bargaining privileges

[Kurokikaze]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...-021.pdf&pli=1

^ Amendment to add collective bargaining rights to their state constitution.

[Caiyuo]

Reading up on the recount at current and so far it seems like Archi was right about it not overturning the result. It looks like there was an extension on the controversial city's time to report their recount as well, but I'm not sure if that's of any importance.

In looking I saw this interesting bit: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...121311284.html

Nonpartisan Advocacy Group Offers $25,000 Reward For Evidence of Tampering in Wisconsin's Supreme Court Election

WASHINGTON, May 5, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- ProtectOurElections.org today offered a $25,000 reward for "information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person or persons for election tampering, resulting in reversal of the current outcome of the April 5, 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court election in which David Prosser is said to lead JoAnne Kloppenburg by more than 7,000 votes." A reward poster is located at http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/SC-Reward.pdf.

ProtectOurElections.org, a network of organizations spearheaded by government accountability watchdog group VelvetRevolution.us, had publicly encouraged Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg to pursue a statewide hand recount of the election. Kloppenburg did request the recount, now underway throughout the state. In some jurisdictions, however, the ballots are being tabulated by the same optical scan machines that produced the first vote count.

Moreover, evidence of very serious deficiencies in the chain of custody for ballots and ballots bags has been identified in a number of counties, as documented by observers on the ground, and as reported in detail on Tuesday by The BRAD BLOG.

"Advocates of election integrity have become experienced in seeing early warning signs that indicate possible election tampering, and we saw some of those indicators in this race," said project director Emily Levy. "For that reason, we strongly recommended that the votes be counted by hand statewide, since the computerized election systems are known to produce incorrect results and can easily be manipulated. Because these machines are not only being used in the recount but have actually been reprogrammed since the election, the counts cannot be trusted. Additionally, the chain of custody of election materials has been anything but secure. Neither we nor the public nor the candidates can know whether the ballots being recounted, whether counted by hand or by machine, are actually the ballots cast by voters. If there has been fraud -- and we don't know that there has – someone knows about it. We hope this reward will prompt them to step forward and present their evidence for the benefit of democracy."

Individuals with information regarding election fraud in the hotly contested race, including "evidence of falsification, alteration, or substitution of ballots or other election materials, illegal modification of election software, or fraudulent recount procedures" are asked to email tips to [email protected]. The identity of those who provide information will be kept strictly confidential, according to the group.

"From Hollywood movies to the television sitcoms, Wisconsin has a reputation for being clean. Wisconsin got that reputation by demanding clean government. That's what we are doing with this reward program, today," said Ben Manski, a Wisconsin attorney who is coordinator of the Wisconsin Wave, a member organization of ProtectOurElections.org.

ProtectOurElections.org is a network of organizations working to ensure the fairness of U.S. elections and to reverse privatization of the tools of democracy.

SOURCE ProtectOurElections.org

[archibaldcrane]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110526/...dldm9pZHNjbw--

Judge voids the union-busting law, acknowledging that it was passed in clear violation of the open meetings law.

MADISON, Wisconsin (Reuters) – A Wisconsin judge on Thursday voided a controversial Republican-backed law restricting the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions.
Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi said Republican lawmakers violated the state's open meetings law in rushing the legislation through during massive protests at the state Capitol earlier this year.
The Wisconsin proposal, championed by Republican Governor Scott Walker, eliminates most collective bargaining rights for public sector unions and requires them to pay more for pensions and health coverage.
The law has been on hold pending the legal challenge. Now that Sumi has ruled, the state's Supreme Court is expected to take up the issue. Although the Supreme Court judges pledge to be independent, a veteran judge backed by Republicans was just narrowly reelected to a state Supreme Court, giving Republican-leaning judges a majority on the court.
Mike Tate, chairman of the state's Democratic Party which opposed the measure, hailed the ruling and said: "It should be looked at as an opportunity to work together to find common sense solutions to grow our economy and get our fiscal house in order, not to tear our state apart."
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

Sumi, who was appointed by former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson, ruled that the evidence was "clear and convincing" that Republicans failed to comply with the law in a hastily called meeting in March to push through legislation containing the collective bargaining changes.
"The legislators were understandably frustrated by the stalemate existing on March 9, but that does not justify jettisoning compliance with the open meetings law in an attempt to move the budget repair bill to final action," Sumi wrote.
"Moreover, if there is any doubt as to the committee's awareness of its violation, one need only read the short transcript of the committee's March 9 proceedings."
Sumi said the legislators had the opportunity to correct their violation without admitting error, but failed to do so.
Walker's office declined to comment on the ruling on Thursday, insisting "it didn't involve us" because the ruling was concerning an action by the legislature.
But the anti-union measure at the center of the controversy has been the hallmark of Walker's first five months in office -- and was one of the first items on his agenda when he called the legislature into special session after his swearing in.
Walker defended the new rules for unions as a needed fiscal reform to help the state close a budget deficit.
Critics saw the bill, which also eliminates automatic deduction of union dues, as a Republican attack on long-held rights to collective bargaining and on the main source of political funding for the Democratic Party.
As the state legislature debated the measure in late February and early March it triggered huge protests outside the state Capitol that on one occasion attracted nearly 100,000 demonstrators -- most opposed to the measure.
Fourteen Democratic state senators fled to Illinois in an effort to deny Republicans the quorum they needed to pass the measure in that chamber.
The lawsuit on which Sumi ruled on Thursday essentially challenged the legislative maneuver the Republicans used to pass the anti-union measure without the 14 Democrats in the chamber.
Scott Fitzgerald, the top Republican in the Senate who orchestrated the passage of the measure there, blasted Sumi's ruling on Thursday, characterizing it as a "separation-of-powers issue: whether one Madison judge can stand in the way of the other two democratically-elected branches of government."
The dispute over the measure has sharply divided Wisconsin, a state that is fairly evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and spawned attempts to recall some legislators on both sides of the issue.
Recall petitions have been filed against six Republicans and three Democrats and special elections are expected to be held on July 12.

If the Supreme Court somehow finds that they didn't violate the open meetings law (it's as clear as fucking day that they did - less than 2 hours notice when 24 hours is required) the judicial system in Wisconsin is broken.


This isn't a ruling on the law itself, it's on how specifically it was passed in this instance. They can just pass it again if they like, following proper procedure, and that's what they should attempt to do. But if the right-leaning judges on the Supreme Court just say "it helps republicans, I don't give a shit" then there is something seriously wrong here.

3. Time of notice.
The provision in Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3) requires that every public notice of a meeting be given at least
twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting, unless “for good cause” such notice is “impossible or impractical.”
If “good cause” exists, the notice should be given as soon as possible and must be given at least two hours in
advance of the meeting. Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3).
No Wisconsin court decisions or Attorney General opinions discuss what constitutes “good cause” to
provide less than twenty-four-hour notice of a meeting. This provision, like all other provisions of the open
meetings law, must be construed in favor of providing the public with the fullest and most complete information
about governmental affairs as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business. Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1)
and (4). If there is any doubt whether “good cause” exists, the governmental body should provide the full
twenty-four-hour notice.

Hell, there's even clear-as-day video evidence that they were completely aware they were violating the open-meetings law and they did it anyways:

[archibaldcrane]

Bleh. It's possible that they didn't violate the law, as it wasn't a "regularly scheduled meeting" and the chamber's rules for how non-regularly scheduled meetings are posted don't require a time limit, and said rules appear to supercede the open meetings law.

Maybe.

If that's the case though, not sure why the Republican-appointed Dane County judge didn't acknowledge that.

(wtf supercede isn't in firefox's spellcheck?)