mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

Democracy On Trial: Wisconsin Supreme Court Recount Begins

The recount in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race begins this Wednesday, April 27. Why was the recount called, how will it be carried out, and how can individuals get involved?

The Why

A recount was expected after the final, unofficial vote count showed Kloppenburg winning by 204 votes. Governor Scott Walker implied as much when he told the Associated Press “[t]he overriding principle has got to be that every vote that was legally cast in Wisconsin needs to be counted.”

The landscape shifted two days after the election when Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus, a Republican activist in the state’s most conservative county, announced she inadvertently missed 14,000 votes, giving the conservative Justice Prosser a lead of more than 7,500 votes. This eleventh-hour announcement by someone who once worked for Prosser led many to question the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections, and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate.

The election was marked by other problems. The director of the state elections board, Kevin Kennedy, significantly miscalculated public interest in the election, predicting a turnout of 20 percent when the actual turnout topped 33 percent statewide and in some areas was as high as 54 percent. Wards around the state ran out of ballots and resorted to using photocopies or requiring all voters to use a single touch-screen machine normally reserved for persons with disabilities. While no voters were turned away, long lines may have deterred some potential voters, and photocopied or otherwise improvised ballots can give rise to challenges.

Even if Prosser’s lead will be difficult to overcome, Kloppenurg said she called for the recount because:

“Wisconsin residents must have full confidence that these election results are legitimate and that this election was fair. A recount will establish where votes were incorrectly tabulated and expose if irregularities compromised the electoral process. A recount may change the outcome of this election or it may confirm it. But when it is done, a recount will have shone necessary and appropriate light on an election which, right now, seems to many people, suspect.”

Additionally, Kloppenburg’s campaign asked the state elections board to appoint an independent investigator to look into potential misconduct surrounding the uncounted Waukesha County votes, citing County Clerk Nickolaus’ partisan affiliations and history of incompetence, and noting that right-wing media outlets reported the changed results before Nickolaus’ April 7 press conference. Kloppenburg may be requesting an independent investigation because Kevin Kennedy rushed to the defense of Nickolaus, issuing a statement expressing “confidence in Wisconsin’s county and municipal clerks,” before he had a chance to investigate the issue and even while admitting that he himself was not informed of the problems with the Waukesha count prior to the press conference held by Nickolaus.

The complaint also alleges that Prosser had a meeting with Governor Walker on April 6, one day after the election (and one day before the Waukesha votes were announced), and that Governor Walker commented on April 6 that there might be “ballots somewhere, somehow found out of the blue that weren’t counted before.” Both Walker and Prosser have denied there was such a meeting.

The How

Because Justice Prosser’s margin of victory was within ½ of one percent after statewide canvassing, Wisconsin law provides for a recount should a candidate request one.  All counties will count simultaneously, with participants likely working through the weekends in order to finish by the May 9 completion date. See the recount manual for more information.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel sets the scene:

An indoor sports arena is filled with poll workers from every municipality in Milwaukee County, each in their own area. At each station, poll workers examine and count ballots one by one. And as they count, campaign volunteers, attorneys and journalists watch their every move – with the campaign representatives sometimes challenging the poll workers’ decisions – while sheriff’s deputies stand guard.

The Journal-Sentinel also reports that “Prosser attorney Jim Troupis has already said the incumbent’s campaign would have hundreds of volunteers, including some flying in from around the country, to monitor the recounts.” Prosser had initially hired the DC lawyer who represented George W. Bush during the infamous 2000 Florida recount that made “W” president, but has apparently replaced him with Troupis, the go-to election lawyer for Wisconsin Republicans. In the past year Troupis has represented Americans for Prosperity in a challenge to fair election rules, legislative Republicans in redistricting efforts, and Club for Growth in a case to compel Senate Democrats back into the state. (See OneWisconsinNow’s 2009 Troupis bio here). He also sits on the Board of Directors of the right-wing, Koch-connected thinktank MacIver Institute.

Kloppenburg initially hired attorneys who represented now-Senator Al Franken in his successful Minnesota recount, but has since retained the Madison firm Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach.

Both Candidates Are Looking for Volunteers and Donations

Both campaigns are seeking volunteers to aid with the recount. The “Kloppenburg for Justice” facebook page has information on who lawyers and other potential volunteers can email to get involved, and Justice Prosser’s “Recount for Victory” website has a volunteer signup sheet.

Observers can watch for lapses in procedure and challenge the decisions of the canvassers if the intent of the voter becomes an issue on any specific ballot. Even in the wards where optical scanners will be used, the ballots will be visually inspected before they are fed to the machine, and observers can verify the machine total.

Although the state will pay for most of the costs associated with the recount, it will not pay lawyers’ fees, and public funding for campaigns no longer applies. Both candidates are accepting donations for what may be substantial lawyers’ fees; according to Justice Prosser’s “Victory Recount Fund” site, “donations are unlimited,” but corporate donations will not be accepted, possibly to avoid conflict-of-interest issues if a case involving a donor comes before the Supreme Court.

By: Brendan Fischer, Center for Media and Democracy, April 26, 2011

April 26, 2011 Posted by | Democracy, Elections, Politics, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Republicans | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why Boehner Must Shut Down The Government

How should Republican leaders deal with the dilemma of being caught between a base that will view any budget deal with President Obama as a sellout and independent voters who are likely to turn on them if they shut down the government? Jonathan Bernstein thinks they should bite the bullet and cut the best deal they can, figuring they’ll get hit by the base no matter what:

what Boehner has to do is to convince Republican Members of the House that the hit they’re going to take from the right for compromising is inevitable. They’ll be seen as sellouts if they cut a deal before a shutdown. They’ll be seen as sellouts if they cut a deal after a six week shutdown. True believers will always be convinced that complete and total victory was just a week away if only the cowardly politicians had been willing to hang in there. They can’t win that game.

Not a bad argument. The counter is that it’s one thing to cut a deal with Obama, and another to be perceived as cutting that deal without really fighting. If Boehner shuts down the government and then cuts a deal, at least he’s demonstrated some willingness to go to the mat and fight, right? Bernstein is right that he’ll have angry Tea Partiers regardless, but I do think he needs to show that he’s fought the good fight. A deal with Obama is bad no matter what, but a deal without a shutdown looks like surrendering the fort without firing a shot.

The other quibble I have with Bernstein’s analysis is that I don’t think he’s really thinking about this the way Boehner is, or even should, be thinking about this. What is the downside to a shutdown? Republicans get less popular, have a lower chance to win the presidency in 2012, and maybe a higher chance of losing the House as well. What is the downside to cutting a deal? GOP backbenchers revolt against Boehner and depose him as Speaker of the House.

If I’m Boehner, I’m more worried about the guns pointed at my back then the guns pointed at my face. A shutdown increases the small chance that he goes from Speaker to Minority Leader in 2013, but a deal increases the chance that he goes from Speaker to (R-OH) in 2011. The right-wingers do not trust Boehner, and he has very little slack. He also lived through a series of purges and attempted purges in the late 1990s, always taking the form of purists complaining that the leadership had gone soft.

Boehner’s top priority is probably staving off internal revolt. That means shutting down the government.

By: Jonathan Chait, The New Republic, March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011 Posted by | Congress, Conservatives, Democrats, Economy, Federal Budget, Government Shut Down, Ideologues, Politics, President Obama, Republicans, Right Wing, Teaparty | , , | Leave a comment

The Hollow Cry of ‘Broke’

“We’re broke! We’re broke!” Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday. “We’re broke in this state,” Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said a few days ago. “New Jersey’s broke,” Gov. Chris Christie has said repeatedly. The United States faces a “looming bankruptcy,” Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

It’s all obfuscating nonsense, of course, a scare tactic employed for political ends. A country with a deficit is not necessarily any more “broke” than a family with a mortgage or a college loan. And states have to balance their budgets. Though it may disappoint many conservatives, there will be no federal or state bankruptcies.

The federal deficit is too large for comfort, and most states are struggling to balance their books. Some of that is because of excessive spending, and much is because the recession has driven down tax revenues. But a substantial part was caused by deliberate decisions by state and federal lawmakers to drain government of resources by handing out huge tax cuts, mostly to the rich. As governments begin to stagger from the self-induced hemorrhaging, Republican politicians like Mr. Boehner and Mr. Walker cry poverty and use it as an excuse to break unions and kill programs they never liked in flush years.

On Wednesday, to cite just the latest example, House Republicans successfully pressured the Senate to approve a bill cutting $4 billion in spending just to keep the federal government from shutting down for the next two weeks. In a matter of days, the Senate will be forced to take up the House bill to make more than $61 billion in ruinous cuts over the next seven months, all under the pretext of “fiscal responsibility.” (At least the White House says it will be involved in the next round.) Many Republican governors are employing the same tactic.

But now voters are starting to notice the effects of these cuts and to get angry at the ideological overreach. A New York Times/CBS News poll published on Tuesday showed that Americans oppose ending bargaining rights for public unions by a majority of nearly two to one. And the poll sharply refutes the post-Reagan Republican mantra that the public invariably abhors all tax increases. Nearly twice as many people said they would prefer a tax increase to cutting benefits of public employees or to cutting spending on roads.

A Gallup poll last week showed that 61 percent of respondents nationwide reject Mr. Walker’s attempt to revoke collective-bargaining rights for public unions, including 41 percent of the Republicans polled. Like the Times/CBS poll, Gallup found a mixed result about the overall popularity of unions, suggesting that labor is on firm ground in defending its basic rights but still needs to negotiate with the public good in mind.

Before the union uprising, Wisconsin voters might not have noticed when Mr. Walker approved business tax cuts earlier this year that made his budget gap worse. But now, with his cries of being “broke,” they should listen more closely. On Tuesday, he unveiled a budget that would cut aid to school districts and local governments by nearly $1 billion over two years, while preventing those jurisdictions from raising property taxes at all to make up for the loss.

Perhaps because of the economic downturn, voting among union households was sharply down last November, which may help explain some of the Republican gains. Mr. Walker and his fellow Republicans, may wind up turning that around next year.

By: The New York Times, Editorial-Opinion Page, March 2, 2011

March 3, 2011 Posted by | Budget, Deficits, Economy | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »