Wisconsin State Senate Recalls

That, by the way, is why I think that professor should be prosecuted: by encouraging out-of-area students to sign, he was committing fraud.

Lying about the intent of the petition is equally scummy, and I'd love to see him jailed for that, but I don't think it's actually a criminal offense.

Here's how they got the statements. On the recall petitions, all you needed to list was your name and address. Democrats used this information to find out the phone numbers of the people who signed, and then began calling them.

Republicans have complained that people who signed recall petitions against the Democrats were barraged with calls seeking evidence they'd been misled to sign.

I hope they get the people who say they've been misled to come forward publicly. I'm curious to find out who these people are.

MattDaddy wrote:

I hope they get the people who say they've been misled to come forward publicly. I'm curious to find out how their names got on the petition.

Fixed for what I'm interested in. And that goes for any fraudulent signatures.

Democrats used this information to find out the phone numbers of the people who signed, and then began calling them.

That's the survey referred to in the earlier post. Is it a bad thing to verify people's signatures? As I recall, you were all for similar rules to make sure that voters were legit, registered and not committing fraud. But you make a survey of *some* respondents to check for fraud sound like you don't like it.

What I typed was a description of how they were able to call people when the petitions had no phone number. Read into it whatever you want, but that was a factual statement, not an opinion.

MattDaddy wrote:

What I typed was a description of how they were able to call people when the petitions had no phone number. Read into it whatever you want, but that was a factual statement, not an opinion.

My god. You're saying Democrats used a telephone book? Those bastards!

MattDaddy wrote:

What I typed was a description of how they were able to call people when the petitions had no phone number. Read into it whatever you want, but that was a factual statement, not an opinion.

I, for one, took it simply as a statement of fact with no agenda behind it. I assumed we were talking about the same thing.

OG_slinger wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:

What I typed was a description of how they were able to call people when the petitions had no phone number. Read into it whatever you want, but that was a factual statement, not an opinion.

My god. You're saying Democrats used a telephone book? Those bastards!

Dude cmon, that's not necessary. There was no douchery going on here. No wonder Matt feels like a victim sometimes.

The Republicans have filed a restraining order to try to stop Democrats from calling people whose names were on the petitions, and have set up their own website to collect stories about problems with the recall petitions.

I read somewhere that all of the Republican recall efforts were being challenged, but it was just a one sentence blurb in the middle of an article on the Democrat challenges. I did find some specifics on 2 of them though.

Alberta Darling's challenge:
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.Iml?Article=235611

Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, has filed a challenge to her recall as well. The move comes as Dem state Rep. Sandy Pasch of Whitefish Bay filed as a candidate against Darling if a recall election is ordered.

But Darling says in the challenge that 4,952 signature are invalid for various reasons and likely more don't meet standards, including a page of the Sheila Harsdorf recall effort that was mixed in with the recall Darling filing. Also, like other GOP recall challenges, Darling says the petitioner didn't file a statement of registration.

The committee to recall Darling turned in 30,000 signatures and needs 20,343 valid ones for the recall to proceed.

Sheila Harsdorf's challenge:
http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/Sen%20Harsdorf%20Challenge%20to%20Recall%20Petition.pdf

Her challenge also mentions the lack of statement of registration, along with examples of signatures that they say should be disqualified.

Seth wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:

What I typed was a description of how they were able to call people when the petitions had no phone number. Read into it whatever you want, but that was a factual statement, not an opinion.

My god. You're saying Democrats used a telephone book? Those bastards!

Dude cmon, that's not necessary. There was no douchery going on here. No wonder Matt feels like a victim sometimes. :)

Douchery? Please. MattDaddy was trying to make an issue out of nothing. The people in question willingly provided their name and address. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to use those bits of information to find another publicly available bit of information: their telephone number.

All I saw from MattDaddy was a simple statement of fact. He didn't say, "and they were scumbags to do so". So I just read it as being a factual statement and left it at that.

However, one does wonder why he mentioned it, since it wasn't especially relevant to what we were talking about, unless he intended it as evidence of Democratic villainy. If that's the case, well... using a phonebook simply does not constitute evil misbehavior.

I mentioned it because it is directly related to the topic at hand. I also included a quote that mentioned some people were bothered by the calls. That quote (and other things I have heard) also imply that maybe the people calling were doing more than just verifying the person signed.

At this point there is little more than hearsay about just how "aggressive" those calls were, so I chose not to include that information.

Wisconsin State Journal[/url]]This week the state Legislature will debate a controversial measure requiring voters to show a photo identification before they can cast a ballot. The legislation, which proponents say will prevent people from voting illegally, would give Wisconsin arguably the most restrictive voter identification law in the country.

Proponents say combating voter fraud, no matter how rare, is a good thing. And they say it is reasonable to expect the same level of scrutiny for voting as for cashing checks, renting cars or using credit cards.

But critics say the measure is a solution without a problem. They say fears of voter fraud are overblown, and photo ID laws discourage many people from voting, especially college students, seniors, minorities and people with disabilities.

Few substantive studies back up either claim. Widespread voter fraud remains unproven, as does the allegation that photo ID laws suppress turnout. One thing is clear: The bill could cost the state millions at a time when Republicans are also fighting to dramatically cut the budget.

In fairness, this was a legislative priority as far back as November, so I don't think our state's GOP is responding to the threat of recall elections here.

Funny how Wisconsin conservatives can say their state is broke one minute, but be completely OK with spending the $5.7 million it would take to enact the law.

Is the Wisconsin driver's license/state ID free? Otherwise this is a poll tax and will be stricken as unconstitutional just like every other attempt to do something like this.

If those things are free and easy to get than I don't have a problem with it from a civil liberties standpoint, although it would still seem like a waste of money unless vote fraud has been an actual problem.

Yonder wrote:

Is the Wisconsin driver's license/state ID free? Otherwise this is a poll tax and will be stricken as unconstitutional just like every other attempt to do something like this.

If those things are free and easy to get than I don't have a problem with it from a civil liberties standpoint, although it would still seem like a waste of money unless vote fraud has been an actual problem.

Not free.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Is the Wisconsin driver's license/state ID free? Otherwise this is a poll tax and will be stricken as unconstitutional just like every other attempt to do something like this.

If those things are free and easy to get than I don't have a problem with it from a civil liberties standpoint, although it would still seem like a waste of money unless vote fraud has been an actual problem.

Not free.

Then this plan is doomed to failure, and is probably just the Republicans forcing the courts to strike down the measure so that they can point their fingers at liberal activist judges hamstringing decent people from making the changes needed to fix this great nation.

FREE IDs will be available

In order for the bill to be constitutional, those who can't afford a photo ID have to be given one for free. Under the bill, there are no standards for those free IDs, so everyone could get a free license or ID card.

I stand corrected. Glad that they're willing to waive the fees for folks who can't afford one.

I still think spending millions on an effort to add barriers to participation in the democratic process (when there's no evidence of voter fraud) is a poor choice. If we want to invest in ensuring accurate, transparent election results, that money should be given to the GAB with a mandate to prevent irregularities like the mess in Waukesha County in the recent Supreme Court election.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I stand corrected. Glad that they're willing to waive the fees for folks who can't afford one.

Are you sure this isn't a ruse to punish those who can afford them?Socialism!

I still think spending millions on an effort to add barriers to participation in the democratic process (when there's no evidence of voter fraud) is a poor choice.

And there's the policy difference at play, where I think that it's fair for two people to both reasonably disagree.

I can assure you that this is a fairly common topic of debate and disagreement in Chicago.

What you posted was correct, Dimmer. We do have to pay for a drivers license. The wording in the article makes it sound like Free drivers licences would be a part of this, but it's always been my understanding that the only free IDs would be the voter ID cards for those who do not have any other form of ID.

There has been evidence of fraud, it's just never been given a lot of press. I don't want to get into how much there is, but it does exist. I don't know how you can call this a barrier when they will give you a free ID. 99% of voters already have a photo ID, and if going out and getting a FREE ID one time is too much, how do you expect them to get out to vote?

MattDaddy wrote:

There has been evidence of fraud, it's just never been given a lot of press. I don't want to get into how much there is, but it does exist. I don't know how you can call this a barrier when they will give you a free ID. 99% of voters already have a photo ID, and if going out and getting a FREE ID one time is too much, how do you expect them to get out to vote?

I'd be very interested in reading that evidence, especially since it's completely contrary to what I've seen reported. From the article I linked above:

Wisconsin State Journal[/url]]Despite the fears raised by some, widespread voter fraud remains more myth than reality. Wendy Weiser, of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Scool of Law, said most studies have shown that voter fraud is typically isolated and almost never affects the outcome of elections. Weiser said that in problem cases, the issue is almost never someone voting under an assumed name, but rather issues with procedures followed by election officials or improper handling of ballots or election machinery.

"This issue is way overblown," Weiser said. "And to the extent that there is any problem at all, photo IDs would help nothing."

Still, the fear of voter fraud has energized the Republican Party across the country, and several photo ID drives are under way. A 2004 study in Ohio showed that the voter fraud rate for that state was .00004 percent.

Again, if ensuring accurate, transparent election results is the goal (and I agree that's a worthwhile goal) - investing money in procedures for election officials & an auditing process are much better places to put resources towards.

Regarding obstacles to participation - the proposal currently before the legislature would require that the ID used have the voter's current address. For younger or less-affluent folks, that will hardly be a one-time thing. I've had times where that would have been more often than once a year. (That said, the WSJ article notes that voter turnout was not significantly impacted in states that have passed similar legislation).

Dimmer, in another thread you wrote this:

It's critically important that we be able to trust the electoral process to accurately reflect the will of the populace.

While it does add a cost to us, doesn't voter ID help insure what you stated above?

Here's an example that vote fraud has happened in Wisconsin:the Election Commission reported that between 4600 and 5300 more ballots were cast than voters who can be accounted for

MattDaddy wrote:

Dimmer, in another thread you wrote this:

It's critically important that we be able to trust the electoral process to accurately reflect the will of the populace.

While it does add a cost to us, doesn't voter ID help insure what you stated above?

Here's an example that vote fraud has happened in Wisconsin:the Election Commission reported that between 4600 and 5300 more ballots were cast than voters who can be accounted for

I tend to side with Matt here. I think taxpayer funding is spent wisely when it's spent to minimize voter fraud and remove financial barriers from voting, such as providing ID cards to those who can't afford them.

Although to be honest, I think the greatest obstacles to voting are [lack of] motivation and education, and no amount of free IDs will change that.

Seth wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:

Dimmer, in another thread you wrote this:

It's critically important that we be able to trust the electoral process to accurately reflect the will of the populace.

While it does add a cost to us, doesn't voter ID help insure what you stated above?

Here's an example that vote fraud has happened in Wisconsin:the Election Commission reported that between 4600 and 5300 more ballots were cast than voters who can be accounted for

I tend to side with Matt here. I think taxpayer funding is spent wisely when it's spent to minimize voter fraud and remove financial barriers from voting, such as providing ID cards to those who can't afford them.

Although to be honest, I think the greatest obstacles to voting are [lack of] motivation and education, and no amount of free IDs will change that.

The counterargument is that having a higher barrier for voting can be used by people in power to restrict access to the vote; a union in charge of issuing the voter cards may choose to invalidate a number of cards for registered republicans, or vice versa.

Thanks for the link, MattDaddy. There's a lot to comb through there, but that seems far more likely to be the result of procedure issues (or misbehavior) by election officials than widespread voter fraud.

For example, the report mentions 1305 "un-enterable" On-Site Voter Registration Cards, with a broken custody chain, no clear criteria for exclusion, and the determination that at least some of those had indeed been entered into the Electors database.

By comparison, they found sixty-six voters who had incorrect addresses, one voter who was deceased, three felons who had voted, and seven individuals who may have double-voted (though there wasn't enough evidence to file charges).

If ensuring accurate, transparent election results is the goal (and I agree that's a worthwhile goal) - investing money in procedures for election officials & an auditing process are much better places to put resources towards.

I don't disagree with improving the procedures. A lot of that document does state that a number of errors were made by the workers. Voter ID is one step towards insuring accurate results. It would also help eliminate some of the worker errors listed in the report.

Here's one that's a lot easier to digest:
5 face voter fraud charges

I think it's great those folks were caught and prosecuted (and I hope the two deputized as special registrars received additional penalties).

The 2004 Ohio study showed voter fraud like that was 0.00004%. Even if we posit that Wisconsin is a hive of villainy and has an incidence of voter fraud ten times as bad as Ohio's, that's a vanishingly small percent (in our most recent state Supreme Court election, that would work out to roughly 60 votes).

Surely that money would be better spent on policies & auditing for election officials?

Instead of using numbers from Ohio and then an arbitrary multiplier to get an estimate, why not use the police report I linked to? There are far more than 60 instances where same day registration allowed for mistakes (if not fraud), and that report was just Milwaukee County.

Voter ID is one part of improving the process and auditing. It's a lot better for the entire process to deal with an ID card than with same day registrations.