Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

Oooo, I got one! Wisconson has Prosser-state cancer! Hurr hurr hurr hurr

If Palin's name happened to be Kloppenburg, this joke would have been made one day 1 and you'd be loving it. What hypocrites you are.

I was way too busy laughing at "I can see Russia from my house" or how she had prepared a concession speech as a VP candidate.

Matt. Puns are reserved for the Everything Else forum, Politics is serious business. No biggie, my c*ck Brothers pun fell flat too dude.

KingGorilla wrote:

Politics is serious business.

IMAGE(http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg)

MattDaddy wrote:

If Palin's name happened to be Kloppenburg, this joke would have been made one day 1 and you'd all be loving it. What hypocrites you are.

MattDaddy, I don't know what to say. I haven't made a single dig at the name (or physical attributes) of any opposition politicians here (or elsewhere, for that matter), and don't believe I've seen anyone else do that, either.

[Edit: with the possible exception of Ulairi, upthread. Don't know what it is about Kloppenburg that's drawing that out.]

Dimmerswitch wrote:

MattDaddy, I don't know what to say. I haven't made a single dig at the name (or physical attributes) of any opposition politicians here (or elsewhere, for that matter), and don't believe I've seen anyone else do that, either.

I guess I did.

I thought the joke was funny...if you have a silly name, and the internet exists, it'll happen.

It's not like I haven't had a good laugh at Boehner's name.

Also didn't we have an entire thread about an Indiana governor named Balls?

Podunk wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

MattDaddy, I don't know what to say. I haven't made a single dig at the name (or physical attributes) of any opposition politicians here (or elsewhere, for that matter), and don't believe I've seen anyone else do that, either.

I guess I did. :(

That was in self-defense though.

Well, Wisconsin hasn't yet rid itself its case of the Klop

Yeah, MattDaddy, you demand respect on your side, but then come up with crap statements like this. You don't get to complain anymore when we're derisive of a conservative candidate.

Malor wrote:

You don't get to complain anymore when we're derisive of a conservative candidate.

Speak for yourself. I DEMAND complaints when I'm being derisive. Otherwise why bother.

Rezzy wrote:
Malor wrote:

You don't get to complain anymore when we're derisive of a conservative candidate.

Speak for yourself. I DEMAND complaints when I'm being derisive. Otherwise why bother.

That pure flavor of derision that you taste in the back of your mouth?

Some of our voting machines don't have the capacity to store election night results and run a recount. Our Government Accountability Board filed a petition to clear the memory on those machines.

The compromise today was to do a hand recount for the 31 counties that would have had to destroy the original results in order to do a recount.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Our Government Accountability Board filed a petition to clear the memory on those machines.

That's because memory is so expensive these days and everyone needs to do their part to cut down on government spending.

OG_slinger wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Our Government Accountability Board filed a petition to clear the memory on those machines.

That's because memory is so expensive these days and everyone needs to do their part to cut down on government spending.

Actually, my understanding is that these are older machines and nobody has any spare memory units for them (and they're no longer being manufactured).

Dimmerswitch wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Our Government Accountability Board filed a petition to clear the memory on those machines.

That's because memory is so expensive these days and everyone needs to do their part to cut down on government spending.

Actually, my understanding is that these are older machines and nobody has any spare memory units for them (and they're no longer being manufactured).

Ah, man. You're going to sh*t all over my duel technology and politics joke? Fine...

Seriously, though. My Spidey senses start to tingle when someone wants to erase all primary records of a contested election. It's not like Wisconsin has another election next week that everyone has to get ready for.

Your Spidey sense is skewed. First off, both sides agreed to this process. Secondly (and I wish I had a link for it), some of those voting machines actually do need to be used again in the near future for local voting.

Where did you get that they are clearing the primary records? The primary record is the actual paper ballot. If the primary records were erased/destroyed how do you think they could even do a recount?

Recount starts today at 9am local time. All counties have to complete their recount by May 9th (including those locations who have to do a hand recount).

Noteworthy: Kathy Nickolaus has recused herself from Waukesha recount efforts. Good for her - I still think that she should have been recused from the election proper, since a former boss was one of the candidates, but this is still a positive step.

And, in an odd sideline - the Kloppenburg campaign alleged that Justice Prosser and Governor Walker met privately the day after the election, just before the Governor's administration filed a case before the Supreme Court to strike down the lawsuit over 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. It's important to note that both Prosser and Walker deny the meeting. The Kloppenburg campaign cites multiple sources that the meeting did take place, but has (so far) refused to name names.

Some conservatives are claiming this puts Kloppenburg in violation of SRC 60.06(3), a state Code of Judicial Conduct rule that forbids judicial candidates from knowingly misrepresenting "the identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact concerning the candidate or an opponent." Since conservative Justice Gableman got in hot water during his 2008 campaign for running a series of ads which misrepresented his opponent, the argument goes, Kloppenburg should be forced to recant the accusation, name names, or be found in violation of SRC 60.06(3). I'm not sure I buy that argument, but I'd sure be interested in knowing the truth about that meeting.

Prosser wins recount.

Kloppenburg gained about 300 votes from the recount, which means Prosser won by over 7,000 votes. If they decide to make legal challenges I can't see this as anything more than a stalling tactic to keep Prosser away from being sworn in as a way of further delaying the budget repair bill. She had her recount and she still lost. Now she needs to gracefully concede and move on.

MattDaddy wrote:

Prosser wins recount.

Kloppenburg gained about 300 votes from the recount, which means Prosser won by over 7,000 votes. If they decide to make legal challenges I can't see this as anything more than a stalling tactic to keep Prosser away from being sworn in as a way of further delaying the budget repair bill. She had her recount and she still lost. Now she needs to gracefully concede and move on.

I'd seen the unofficial numbers, but was going to wait until the official numbers came in on Monday to post.

I am curious about what grounds the Kloppenburg campaign feels they might have for legal challenges - I haven't seen any writeup more in-depth than a statement that they're considering their options.

The budget bill isn't delayed one way or the other by the results of the state Supreme Court election. Like I noted in the other thread, the Wisconsin GOP can render the current lawsuits entirely moot by passing the bill correctly.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

The budget bill isn't delayed one way or the other by the results of the state Supreme Court election. Like I noted in the other thread, the Wisconsin GOP can render the current lawsuits entirely moot by passing the bill correctly.

At this point it hasn't been ruled that they voted incorrectly the first time. It's also been noted that there are reasons for them not to want to pass the bill again.

The way this could tie into the bill is that they have asked the state supreme court to take the case. The court consistently votes 4-3 conservative, so keeping Prosser's re-election tied up could be a big advantage to the Democrats. If the timing works out so that the supreme court takes on the case while Prosser's spot is still being held up the decision would be split 3-3. Now before everyone starts accusing me of things, be clear that this is not my conspiracy theory, but something that has been mentioned as all of these things are going on at the same time.

Not a surprise, but the GAB today officially certified the recount results.

Wisconsin State Journal[/url]]The Wisconsin board that certifies elections declared Monday that a recount had confirmed state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser defeated challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg in the hard-fought April 5 election many saw as a referendum on polarizing union rights legislation.
The board said Prosser won by 7,004 votes after Kloppenburg picked up 312 in the monthlong recount she requested.

Kloppenburg has until May 31 to file a legal challenge. Unless they have compelling evidence I haven't seen yet, I don't expect a one to be filed.

Did want to note that Joanne Kloppenburg today conceded defeat, and declared her campaign wouldn't pursue a legal challenge to the results of the recount - pretty much what I'd expected.

Looks like she gracefully conceded and moved on...

What was the spread?

Final tally was 7004 vote lead for Prosser, which is 0.46 percent of total votes cast.

As a reminder, results of Feb. 15 primary were:
Prosser: 55%
Kloppenburg: 25%

Well, if this is true, this is quite the bombshell:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers last week, according to at least three knowledgeable sources.

Details of the incident, investigated jointly by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, remain sketchy. The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.

They say an argument that occurred before the court’s release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees culminated in a physical altercation in the presence of other justices. Bradley purportedly asked Prosser to leave her office, whereupon Prosser grabbed Bradley by the neck with both hands.

I'm speechless.

[Edit: and annoyed enough to vent through political art]
IMAGE(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3230/5870529331_d85a16c0ba.jpg)

I don't understand why she doesn't press charges, to be honest.

Malor wrote:

I don't understand why she doesn't press charges, to be honest.

Maybe she will.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel[/url]]Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley issued a statement late Saturday saying that fellow Justice David Prosser choked her and disputing claims that she attacked him first.

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," she said. "Those are the facts and you can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin.

"Matters of abusive behavior in the workplace aren't resolved by competing press releases," she said.

"I'm confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace."