******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

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


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


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

  3. @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.

  4. "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.

  5. 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?!

  6. I am quite certain that the greatest minds in the democrats party are working out how to come up with the needed votes. Usually the greatest minds in the democrat party is no cause for concern but as we have all seen over the years the democrats have the morality of a thrice convicted child rapist with a bad drug habit

  7. As I have said, look for a bunch of ballots to appear as if from nowhere.

  8. I'll warn again -- I think they're goings to try to subtract Prosser votes rather than find new Kloppy votes. They control the lower courts to uphold Dem challenges and the WiSC might tie with a Prosser recusal. The I think it goes to the Secretary of State La Follette (perhaps somebody in Wi. knows for sure if he is the tie breaker or not?).

    Whatever the Republicans do, they should not allow Madison and Milwaukee do quick, unchallenged recounts.

  9. The leftists who poured funds into Kloppenburg's coffers (i.e. union thugs) don't play nice. This election was supposed to be in the bag - for their candidate.

    Losing......demand a recount. Then the thugs will pull ANYTHING to make the numbers come up in their candidate's favor. Anything. By any means necessary.

    OT - Thanks for the change to Traffic. Yes was becoming tiresome. Love that song, too!!! One of the rock & roll classics.

  10. Simply discount and invalidate 3/4's of Prosser's margin and find 1/4 plus a few to meet and exceed the earlier final count for a new and improved final outcome favoring the sigh Klopps.

    The math is simple; it's the manipulated art of deception (eg Dem ballots found in Palin's igloos and hairdos) that takes a stolen election to a sincerely clever heroic level.