Wisconsin State Senate Recalls

MattDaddy wrote:

You used an unverified report and said they should "start" with him, as if he should be the #1 suspect in any investigation. That, plus the other posts by you that use rumors you find on the internet as a way trying to insinuate that the GOP is up to evil things is what led to the witch hunt tag, laughable as that may be to you.

I'm not sure what the other posts you're referring to here, but I cite all my sources (with links, where possible), and try especially hard to be diligent with my caveats. The two stories I mentioned today were breaking news, and I indicated that it was too soon to tell what was actually going on. I haven't seen any follow-up coverage of Karen Tuerk's allegations, so it may well be that those were unfounded (a possibility I acknowledge in my initial post). In contrast, Wisconsin Right to Life has admitted making the robocalls I posted about upthread, and confirmed that the script was indeed the same text reported on the Blue Cheddar blog I linked to earlier in the day. Executive Director Barbara Lyons claims the calls were about the August elections, though no date is mentioned in the script - she also said the calls, "as best we know", were targeted at supporters of the organization, and that tens of thousands of calls were made.

This blog post (caution: unsourced material ahead) claimed that the calls were targeting District 10, prior to any results being announced. I look forward to reporters doing some investigative journalism, especially since that's looking like the only district where the fake Democrat was even close to the real candidate.

[Edit to add: thanks for thinking to link to the results page, PhoenixRev. I was watching that in realtime earlier, but didn't think to share it here. Looks like we've cleared the first hurdle in this process.]

Dimmerswitch wrote:

[Edit to add: thanks for thinking to link to the results page, PhoenixRev. I was watching that in realtime earlier, but didn't think to share it here. Looks like we've cleared the first hurdle in this process.]

No problem, DS. I have been following the results all night.

Interesting factoid: I have now heard or read several times tonight that turnout was a lot higher than anticipated.

This is outstanding; good on Wisconsin voters.

Who funded the fake candidates?

Robear wrote:

Who funded the fake candidates?

The campaigns didn't report raising a lot of funds, but the money they got was predominantly from the GOP. I expect that third parties did spend in support of the fake candidates, but haven't seen any good information about it yet.

[Edit: adding shortened URL since Drupal doesn't like pipes]

Pollster Charles Franklin has looked at the turnout numbers and posted some data on Twitter.

Highlights:
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/sBhrc.png)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/bnk1j.png)

Turnout overall was quite high, and (surprisingly) the highest turnout was in District 10 - where Moore won by the slimmest margin of the night.

I think those charts are mis-labeled. They say "turnout as a percentage of April turnout", but then the April turnout is on the first chart as just under 30%. I'm confused about what the percentages actually mean. Are they voter turnout (percent of registered voters) or voter turnout as a percentage of something else?

Sup. Ct. Primary '11 in the first chart would be the primaries which were held on Feb. 15th of this year. In both charts, the x-axis represents the turnout, as compared with the recent Supreme Court election in April (which had extremely high turnout for a court race).

I agree they could be more clearly done, though.

Higher turnout was due to people coming out to vote for the protest candidates.

Oh, is that what they are now, MattDaddy? "Protest candidates?" Not 'ringers'?

Is there anything that Republicans do that you don't agree with? How unethical do they have to GET before you realize that they are, in fact, unethical?

MattDaddy wrote:

Higher turnout was due to people coming out to vote for the protest candidates.

An interesting turn of phrase. Senator Fitzgerald was a little more forthcoming about the reason for fielding those candidates, though.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel[/url]]Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald fully endorsed the idea Tuesday of fielding fake Democrats in recall elections against Republicans in an effort to delay the general elections.

"It gives us another month to campaign," said the Republican from Juneau.

Recall elections for six Republican senators are scheduled for July 12. If there are multiple candidates from the same party in any of those elections, the July 12 election becomes a primary election and a general recall election will be scheduled for Aug. 9.

Fitzgerald said Republicans would be recruited to run as Democrats -- likely in all six races -- so that the elections would be pushed back a month. He said he was persuaded by campaign staff that it was a good idea and consulted with state election officials to make sure it was allowed.

Regardless of what you call them, it's clear they weren't protesting anything. It was a cynical ploy to buy the Wisconsin GOP more time in-office, and I think it pretty clearly points to their being more than a little nervous about the outcome of these recall elections.

MattDaddy, as a fiscal conservative who opposed the recount in the recent very close race for State Supreme Court, how do you feel about upwards of $400,000 of taxpayer money being spent on primaries with fake candidates?

Malor wrote:

Oh, is that what they are now, MattDaddy? "Protest candidates?" Not 'ringers'?

Is there anything that Republicans do that you don't agree with? How unethical do they have to GET before you realize that they are, in fact, unethical?

MattDaddy wrote:

1) It's a term that's been used in many articles and new stories, not one I made up.

2) Yes, and if you'd bother to search this forum you'd find some here. I bet you even know of a few, but to admit that would take away from your insane ranting against me.

3) Every time I post all you can do is rant at me like an enraged lunatic. Is this the kind of behavior that got you a time out from P&C the last time?

Opening post of this thread wrote:

Also: I'd like to plead for us all to make room for dissenting opinions and reasonable debate.

If folks need to hammer out personal issues, can it please happen outside of this thread? I will be bummed if this gets locked and I have to create yet another WI thread to track events as they unfold.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

MattDaddy, as a fiscal conservative who opposed the recount in the recent very close race for State Supreme Court, how do you feel about upwards of $400,000 of taxpayer money being spent on primaries with fake candidates?

I am not a supporter of fielding fake/protest/placeholder candidates in any race. I do not want to be wasting money on an extra round of elections. I would not have come up with this as a solution to the problem. The problem being that the GOP incumbents were put at a disadvantage by the timing of the elections.

I think the GAB made a mistake by scheduling the Republican recalls earlier than the Democratic ones. That process smells of bias, but nothing has been proven.

I also think this recall process as a whole is a waste. These 9 elections are wasting money too, and I don't agree with recalling a bunch of elected officials (on either side) because of their stance on one issue.

1) It's a term that's been used in many articles and new stories, not one I made up.

2) Yes, and if you'd bother to search this forum you'd find some here. I bet you even know of a few, but to admit that would take away from your insane ranting against me.

3) Every time I post all you can do is rant at me like an enraged lunatic. Is this the kind of behavior that got you a time out from P&C the last time?

Edit: So I see Malor edited his original comment about me being fine with the GOP burning babies and such. I'm leaving my original response to him, as it addresses his actions towards me. I know what the original post said, even if those coming in late will now never see it (next time I'll quote it).

Dimmerswitch wrote:

If folks need to hammer out personal issues, can it please happen outside of this thread? I will be bummed if this gets locked and I have to create yet another WI thread to track events as they unfold.

FYI, my response was to his original post, which was far more inflammatory than what he eventually edited it to be.

MattDaddy wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

MattDaddy, as a fiscal conservative who opposed the recount in the recent very close race for State Supreme Court, how do you feel about upwards of $400,000 of taxpayer money being spent on primaries with fake candidates?

I am not a supporter of fielding fake/protest/placeholder candidates in any race. I do not want to be wasting money on an extra round of elections. I would not have come up with this as a solution to the problem. The problem being that the GOP incumbents were put at a disadvantage by the timing of the elections.

I'm sorry, but "put at a disadvantage"? They went against the will of their constituency, and so the constituency went through proper channels to remove people from office that clearly did not represent said constituency. Your comments read like you are actively ignoring the prior actions of the Republican incumbents that lead to this situation in the first place.

MattDaddy wrote:

I think the GAB made a mistake by scheduling the Republican recalls earlier than the Democratic ones. That process smells of bias, but nothing has been proven.

That the results of the GOP recalls were more clear-cut than those of the Democrat recalls doesn't really read as bias to me. Granted, I don't know the entire situation like the back of my hand, but from what I've read, the Democrats did not have out-of-state organizations trying to muscle their way into the state to affect the process. In my eyes, such evidence requires further scrutiny. It is not the Democrat's nor the GAB's fault that the Republicans didn't already have someone in the party ready to run for the election, especially knowing full well that the recalls were coming.

MattDaddy wrote:

I also think this recall process as a whole is a waste. These 9 elections are wasting money too, and I don't agree with recalling a bunch of elected officials (on either side) because of their stance on one issue.

The recall process is a Democratic/Constitutional process that should further remind us as citizens that we still do, in fact, hold the power in this country. We put people into official positions to represent us, and should they fail to do so-- egregiously in the case of the WI GOP incumbent-- the people have the right to put in motion the effort to remove them. Even that process is a democratic one-- it's not as if the recall process is simply "replace one party member with someone of the opposite political party." They set up a democratic election so the people can vote fairly for who will take the seat. Even then, the recall wasn't a result of those GOPs' stance-- it was a result of their efforts to bulldoze a law through the system in spite of the majority crying foul.

Personally, I feel that the money spent on these recall elections is money to solidify the democratic process, and so it is money well spent.

MattDaddy wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

MattDaddy, as a fiscal conservative who opposed the recount in the recent very close race for State Supreme Court, how do you feel about upwards of $400,000 of taxpayer money being spent on primaries with fake candidates?

I am not a supporter of fielding fake/protest/placeholder candidates in any race. I do not want to be wasting money on an extra round of elections. I would not have come up with this as a solution to the problem. The problem being that the GOP incumbents were put at a disadvantage by the timing of the elections.

I did want to highlight this. MattDaddy, I appreciate the fact that you're being consistent here, though I disagree that the GOP incumbents were put at a disadvantage by the timing of the elections.

WipEout wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:

I think the GAB made a mistake by scheduling the Republican recalls earlier than the Democratic ones. That process smells of bias, but nothing has been proven.

That the results of the GOP recalls were more clear-cut than those of the Democrat recalls doesn't really read as bias to me. Granted, I don't know the entire situation like the back of my hand, but from what I've read, the Democrats did not have out-of-state organizations trying to muscle their way into the state to affect the process. In my eyes, such evidence requires further scrutiny. It is not the Democrat's nor the GAB's fault that the Republicans didn't already have someone in the party ready to run for the election, especially knowing full well that the recalls were coming.

While it is humorous that the efforts to recall Democratic senators were spearheaded by out-of-state organizations, given how loudly the GOP tried to claim that Wisconsinites were not behind the massive protests earlier this year, it wasn't part of the GAB's decision-making process.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel[/url]]Those attempting to recall the Democrats have accused the accountability board of partisan bias. The board consists of six retired judges and was specifically designed to be nonpartisan. The board said politics played no role in its decision, it worked on reviewing signatures as quickly as possible and it was able to get through the petitions against Republicans faster than the ones against Democrats.

The two sides have made significantly different arguments for why the recall elections should be denied. The Republicans say Democrats filed their initial paperwork in the wrong way. The Democrats say those circulating petitions against them often misrepresented themselves; fraud was so rampant that the petitions should be thrown out, they argue.

The Democrats have submitted more than 200 affidavits that they say show fraud was committed. The board has said it is obligated to review all that material, which will take more time.

In contrast, the Republicans made a purely legal argument that paperwork was filed improperly. The same argument was made in all six cases, so once the board got through one of them, there was comparatively little work to do on the others.

All six Republicans being recalled made exactly the same procedural argument. Consequently, it was much easier for the GAB to quickly process and decide those cases.

For the record, my strong preference would have been to have all the recall elections on the same day, and for that to happen as early as was practicable. I also agree with WipEout that the legitimate recall elections (the ones with actual candidates) are an investment in the democratic process.

WipEout wrote:

That the results of the GOP recalls were more clear-cut than those of the Democrat recalls doesn't really read as bias to me. Granted, I don't know the entire situation like the back of my hand, but from what I've read, the Democrats did not have out-of-state organizations trying to muscle their way into the state to affect the process. In my eyes, such evidence requires further scrutiny. It is not the Democrat's nor the GAB's fault that the Republicans didn't already have someone in the party ready to run for the election, especially knowing full well that the recalls were coming.

They still should have scheduled the recalls for the same day, even if some of them took longer to approve. I'm not sure what you mean about the Republicans didn't have someone ready to run for the election. The ones running in the election are currently elected officials busy working in Madison. They already knew who would be there, but the argument is that they did not have enough time to campaign compared to the Democrat challengers, who are not currently busy with being in Madison.

WipEout wrote:

Even then, the recall wasn't a result of those GOPs' stance-- it was a result of their efforts to bulldoze a law through the system in spite of the majority crying foul.

First off, I'm not saying the recall process is bad, just in this case it is a waste. How did they bulldoze this through? They had to delay it due to the 14 Democrats running away to IL. The ones being recalled didn't bulldoze anything. At best you can argue that the Fitzgeralds did, but then you are saying that it's ok to blame everyone in the party for the actions of certain individuals.

I'd also love to see some evidence that the "majority is crying foul. The Supreme court race proved that the majority still support the conservative side.

MattDaddy wrote:

I'd also love to see some evidence that the "majority is crying foul. The Supreme court race proved that the majority still support the conservative side.

Wow.

We should scrap local district elections because of the results of one state-wide race?

/boggle

Phoenix Rev wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:

I'd also love to see some evidence that the "majority is crying foul. The Supreme court race proved that the majority still support the conservative side.

Wow.

We should scrap local district elections because of the results of one state-wide race?

/boggle

Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word from Coruscant that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever.
General Tagge: But that's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.

I think MattDaddy was just taking exception to WipEout's characterization of the recalls being the result of our state GOP bulldozing through 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 while the majority cried foul, and attempted to use the results of the Prosser / Kloppenburg election to show there is still strong support for conservative policies in Wisconsin.

Key findings of a statewide poll completed yesterday (warning, PDF link):

* 55% are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the state today, a new high for the UW Badger Poll.
* 81% said Wisconsin is in bad times economically and 50% expect it will be in about the same economic condition in the next 12 months, while 20% said things will get worse.
* Nearly two-thirds of Wisconsinites feel that state government is run for the benefit of a few big interests over that of all the people and can only be trusted to do the right thing some of the time.
* 59% disapprove of the way Scott Walker is handling his job as Governor.
*60% disapprove of the way the State Legislature is handling its job.
* 56% disapprove of the job Republicans in the State Legislature are doing.
* 48% disapprove of the job Democrats in the State Legislature are doing.
* Wisconsinites overwhelming think the recall option in the state constitution is a good thing (78%), and 50% said the current recalls of state senators made them feel better about Wisconsin politics.
* 59% of residents statewide preferred that the Democratic state senators remain in office rather than be recalled and 49% said the same of the Republican state senators.

If folks want to talk about 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 or the manner in which it became law, we've got a thread for that.

MattDaddy wrote:
WipEout wrote:

That the results of the GOP recalls were more clear-cut than those of the Democrat recalls doesn't really read as bias to me. Granted, I don't know the entire situation like the back of my hand, but from what I've read, the Democrats did not have out-of-state organizations trying to muscle their way into the state to affect the process. In my eyes, such evidence requires further scrutiny. It is not the Democrat's nor the GAB's fault that the Republicans didn't already have someone in the party ready to run for the election, especially knowing full well that the recalls were coming.

They still should have scheduled the recalls for the same day, even if some of them took longer to approve. I'm not sure what you mean about the Republicans didn't have someone ready to run for the election. The ones running in the election are currently elected officials busy working in Madison. They already knew who would be there, but the argument is that they did not have enough time to campaign compared to the Democrat challengers, who are not currently busy with being in Madison.

Sorry, I was unaware that the person being recalled could run for the same position in which they were, for all intents and purposes, being kicked out of. I guess the recall isn't exactly kicking that person out of that seat, then.

MattDaddy wrote:
WipEout wrote:

Even then, the recall wasn't a result of those GOPs' stance-- it was a result of their efforts to bulldoze a law through the system in spite of the majority crying foul.

First off, I'm not saying the recall process is bad, just in this case it is a waste. How did they bulldoze this through? They had to delay it due to the 14 Democrats running away to IL. The ones being recalled didn't bulldoze anything. At best you can argue that the Fitzgeralds did, but then you are saying that it's ok to blame everyone in the party for the actions of certain individuals.

But the Democrats skipped town solely to stop the process of bulldozing the anti-union thing through, did they not? Even during those protests and petitions and all that madness that was going on in and around Madison that was proof that the majority of the people (within their respective districts) did not agree with the bill that their GOP representatives were trying to pass. Whether Fitzgerald spear-headed the situation at that point or not, the GOP incumbents that were recalled decided on their own to A) support the bill, B) pass the bill illegally, and C) at best keep quite when other GOP members tried to enforce it, if not actively support such wrongful enforcement.

MattDaddy wrote:

I'd also love to see some evidence that the "majority is crying foul. The Supreme court race proved that the majority still support the conservative side.

Doesn't it takes a majority to push a recall election ahead within a district? If so, there's your evidence right there. If it wasn't the majority within that district that signed the petition, then they would not have had enough signatures to recall. If those officials hadn't tried to push ahead the bill with which the majority of their respective districts disagreed, those people wouldn't have opted to remove those officials in the first place.

______________________________________________

EDIT TO ADD: Sorry to come back to Act 10, Dimmer. I'll leave it at that. It was my understanding that it was the catalyst for the current recall situations, so I felt it tied in a great deal with this thread.

Wisconsin's recall laws are a little odd, and it's probably worth doing a recap.

Wisconsin Law, § 9.10(1)[/url]](a) The qualified electors of the state, of any county, city, village, or town, of any congressional, legislative, judicial, town sanitary, or school district, or of any prosecutorial unit may petition for the recall of any incumbent elective official by filing a petition with the same official or agency with whom nomination papers or declarations of candidacy for the office are filed demanding the recall of the officeholder.

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), a petition for recall of an officer shall be signed by electors equal to at least 25% of the vote cast for the office of governor at the last election within the same district or territory as that of the officeholder being recalled.

So, the petitions need to have at least 25% as many signatures as the number of people who voted in that district in the last gubernatorial election (though there is no provision that the people signing the petition have to have themselves voted in that election, only that they are currently eligible voters).

§ 9.10(2) of our state's law further provides that no recall may be filed against an official until they've served at least one year in office - this is why Walker will not face a recall until January of next year, and is also why only some members of the state Senate were eligible for recall.

Ah, I stand corrected. Even so, however, it didn't take a majority to petition for the recalls, it still took a majority to vote the incumbents out, so I guess my point kinda still holds water.

So then, out of curiosity, what was the percentage of signatures relative to the previous elections for the recall petition? I'm assuming more than 25%, but has a more exact number been presented? Or am I skimming now?

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I think MattDaddy was just taking exception to WipEout's characterization of the recalls being the result of our state GOP bulldozing through 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 while the majority cried foul, and attempted to use the results of the Prosser / Kloppenburg election to show there is still strong support for conservative policies in Wisconsin.

That's correct. I guess it was too much to expect that I be treated with some respect and not be compared to Evil empires and baby burners.

WipEout wrote:

Ah, I stand corrected. Even so, however, it didn't take a majority to petition for the recalls, it still took a majority to vote the incumbents out, so I guess my point kinda still holds water.

So then, out of curiosity, what was the percentage of signatures relative to the previous elections for the recall petition? I'm assuming more than 25%, but has a more exact number been presented? Or am I skimming now?

The incumbents haven't been voted out. Yesterday was just a day for democrat primaries. The people up for recall are currently still in their positions. Your point is leaking all over the place.

Edit: Dimmer already addressed the second paragraph in an earlier post.

MattDaddy wrote:
WipEout wrote:

Ah, I stand corrected. Even so, however, it didn't take a majority to petition for the recalls, it still took a majority to vote the incumbents out, so I guess my point kinda still holds water.

So then, out of curiosity, what was the percentage of signatures relative to the previous elections for the recall petition? I'm assuming more than 25%, but has a more exact number been presented? Or am I skimming now?

The incumbents haven't been voted out. Yesterday was just a day for democrat primaries. The people up for recall are currently still in their positions. Your point is leaking all over the place.

True. Cold medicine doesn't help me in P&C conversations, sorry for the confusion.

WipEout wrote:

Ah, I stand corrected. Even so, however, it didn't take a majority to petition for the recalls, it still took a majority to vote the incumbents out, so I guess my point kinda still holds water.

So then, out of curiosity, what was the percentage of signatures relative to the previous elections for the recall petition? I'm assuming more than 25%, but has a more exact number been presented? Or am I skimming now?

I'm sure the numbers are available, but they're not going to be terribly useful. Most petition efforts stopped after they had more than the 25% plus a margin for any challenged/invalid signatures. The only effort I'm aware of which was close was the in-state effort to recall Democrat Mark Miller. As mentioned upthread, they were only 268 signatures short of the threshold. Important to note that the in-state Miller recall folks declined to combine their efforts with the out-of-state people responsible for the three other Democratic Senators being recalled, as they felt lead organizer (and Utah native) Dan Baltes' motives were suspect.

I also agree with WipEout that the legitimate recall elections (the ones with actual candidates) are an investment in the democratic process.

For the record, I'm fine with the recall expenditures, for both parties. That's part of the process.

Forcing primaries by running fake candidates, however, is entirely unethical.

Maybe the Democrats should start playing those games too. Who knows, they might even win with one of their ringers. The Republicans almost did. Then people would be given the choice of a Democrat, or a Democrat pretending to be a Republican. Win!

Well, the voters lose, because they're being tricked, but who cares what voters want? It's all about the party, man.

Malor wrote:

Maybe the Democrats should start playing those games too.

They already did back in 2010.

http://biggovernment.com/mtrackers/2011/06/07/the-lefts-hypocrisy-on-fake-candidates-in-wisconsin/