The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (G.A.B.), the state’s top election authority, found “no major discrepancy” during its four-day investigation of Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus’ handling of the contentious April 5th state Supreme Court race.
The state probe, however, did not examine the accuracy of elections results as reported by the county’s electronic tabulation systems.
According to an initial report released by the G.A.B. in time for the tomorrow’s 5pm deadline for Asst. Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg to decide if she will request a state-sponsored “recount,” officials carried out a “thorough onsite examination of the documentation submitted from all the reporting units within Waukesha County … to determine whether the official canvass results certified by the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers matched the returns provided by the municipalities.”
Though they found a number of seemingly minor “discrepancies [in] the Waukesha County election returns that could not be explained based upon the documentation reviewed,” the officials said that while there were “some anomalies identified, the G.A.B. found no major discrepancies between Waukesha County’s official canvass report and the documentation provided by the municipalities.” The discrepancies included what appeared to be one provisional vote for the incumbent Justice David Prosser, and two write-in votes for Kloppenburg which were not included in the canvass report turned into the state by Clerk Nickolaus.
The agency said their probe determined no corrections to the canvass were necessary “absent any post election proceedings,” and added that “A more thorough discussion of these anomalies will be provided in the agency’s complete report” promised within the next 60 days. [The G.A.B.’s complete, one-and-a-half page report, is posted at the end of this article.]
The state’s investigation did not, however, appear to include examination of computer vote tabulators or paper ballots to determine the accuracy of optical-scan results reported by the electronic systems used in the county. The report suggests that paper work, such as the “Total Votes Cast Report from Voting Equipment” and “Security Documentation of Voting Equipment Memory Devices,” was examined along with “Ballot Container Security Seals/Documentation” and a reconciliation of poll lists and other logs.
As The BRAD BLOG has noted since unofficial results of the election — which had become a proxy battle between supporters and opponents of Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s union-stripping legislation — the optically-scanned paper ballot results, tallied by oft-failed, easily-manipulated computer tabulators in Waukesha, as well as the rest of the state, have not been verified for accuracy by human beings. Rather, the state’s post-election canvass procedures rely only on computer-reported totals as checked against poll books and the number of ballots cast as reported by the computer counters…
On Election Night, Kloppenburg was reported to have been just 204 votes ahead of Prosser, a virtual deadlock. Two days following the election, in a stunning news conference, Nickolaus announced that she had left more than 14,000 votes out of her Election Night tally, resulting in a reversal of the state-wide results, and giving her former colleague Prosser a lead by some 7500 votes.
Prosser had previously served as Nickolaus’ boss in the state Assembly Republican Caucus and, during the campaign, had promised to support Walker’s legislative agenda if re-elected to another 10-year term. With Prosser in place on the bench, there is currently a 4 to 3 Right-leaning split which would be reversed should Kloppenburg be found to have won the election.
Following the canvassed results in Wisconsin’s 72 counties, Prosser is said to hold a 7,316 vote lead out of some 1.5 million ballots cast — a margin of just 0.488%, entitling Kloppenburg to a machine “recount,” paid for by the state, if she so chooses. For a hand examination of all ballots, she would need to receive a court order after demonstrating that such an examination would be likely to reverse the results of the election.
The 14,000+ additional votes from the city of Brookfield, announced by Nickolaus two days after the election, had been previously reported independently on Election Night by a local reporter at the Brookfield Patch. Discrepancies in Nickolaus’ explanation for the error, as well as a lengthy record of disturbing election procedures and seemingly inexplicable results in previous elections discovered since last week’s press conference, have brought a great deal of scrutiny to the controversial County Clerk.
Nickolaus’ checkered history includes, among other concerns, being taken to task by the County Executives after an independent audit of her election procedures discovered a host of questionable practices such as election results being kept only on a personal computer in her office, and the same user ID and password used for all three employees who had access to the system. Last week, the G.A.B. announced they planned to investigate election results in Waukesha going back five years when, in 2006, Nickolaus reported some 20,000 more votes counted than “ballots cast” in a very close state-wide race for Attorney General. The Republican candidate in that election ended up winning the contest by just over 8,000 votes state-wide.
Yesterday during a press conference following the completion of the state-wide canvass, Prosser declared victory and described the election as a “decisive” win.
His campaign attorney vowed to “take every and any step” to block the state-wide count that Kloppenburg is now entitled to, referring to such a verification of the still-unverified results as “frivolous.”
According to WTAQ, “Campaign manager Melissa Mulliken said Prosser’s people would have a ‘hard case to make’ that it would be frivolous to ask for a recount. She said the state law clearly expects recounts when the margin is within one-half-of-one-percent, like it is here.”
Last week, VelvetRevolution.us’ Protect Our Elections campaign called for a complete, state-wide hand count of all paper ballots cast in the election. Today they issued an alert to members, asking them to contact the Kloppenburg campaign to encourage her to demand such a hand count in hopes of achieving confidence in the final results for both candidates and their supporters. [Disclosure: The BRAD BLOG is a co-founder of VR.]
The complete 4/19/11 statement from the WI Government Accountability Board on Waukesha County’s April 5, 2011, election returns is here in PDF format, and follows in text format below…
on the April 5, 2011, Spring Election Waukesha Election Returns
In response to concerns from the public regarding the unofficial election results reported by the Waukesha County Clerk, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (G.A.B.) conducted a thorough onsite examination of the documentation submitted from all the reporting units within Waukesha County. The examination was to determine whether the official canvass results certified by the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers matched the returns provided by the municipalities.
As soon as our office was informed of the misreporting of the unofficial election results from Waukesha County for the office of Justice of the Supreme Court, the Director dispatched Elections Division staff to evaluate the situation onsite. On Friday, April 8, 2011, G.A.B. staff met with Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus to examine the election returns from the City of Brookfield and discuss the process which Clerk Nickolaus used when reporting her unofficial election results. The following week, our staff conducted a more thorough review of the election materials from all reporting units in Waukesha County and interviewed Clerk Nickolaus.
The review was conducted over four days and focused on auditing the Spring Election materials, including:
- Total Votes Cast Report from Voting Equipment
- Ballot Container Security Seals/Documentation
- Inspectors’ Statement- Election Day Log
- Write-In Form
- Security Documentation of Voting Equipment Memory Devices
- Certification Page of Poll List
All documents were photographed or scanned and any relevant data was recorded by G.A.B. staff. The total votes cast record reported by the voting equipment was compared to the official canvass report from Waukesha County. The ballot container security seals were compared to the required documentation record maintained by the appropriate election officials. The total number of voters recorded on the Inspectors’ Statement and Certification Page of Poll List were compared to the total number of ballots cast, to ensure there were not more ballots counted than voter numbers issued.
After completing the review of the election materials from Waukesha County, there were some discrepancies found in the G.A.B.’s evaluation of the Waukesha County election returns that could not be explained based upon the documentation reviewed. The official Waukesha County canvass for the reporting unit of City of Delafield Wards 1-7 recorded one additional vote for candidate David Prosser that was not included in the total votes cast report from the voting equipment. The County Clerk believes this was a provisional ballot. However, we have not yet verified this information. Additionally, two separate reporting units, the Village of Menomonee Falls Wards 20 & 22 and City of Waukesha Ward 36, each recorded a write-in vote for candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg on the Write-In Form. Neither of these write-in votes appear to be included in the official Waukesha County canvass. Finally, there were discrepancies identified with write-in votes and how they were reported in the official canvass. There is no information provided in the materials the G.A.B. reviewed to explain these anomalies.
Although there were some anomalies identified, the G.A.B. found no major discrepancies between Waukesha County’s official canvass report and the documentation provided by the municipalities. This does not warrant correction of the canvass absent any post election proceedings. A more thorough discussion of these anomalies will be provided in the agency’s complete report.
This statement focuses only on our review of the official returns of the municipalities and the vote totals certified by the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers to the Government Accountability Board. The G.A.B. will continue to review additional documentation and correspondence from the Waukesha County and Municipal Clerks’ offices relating to all issues identified for investigation. In light of the potential statewide recount and our review of numerous recall petitions, a detailed report will be completed in the next 60 days.
So the deaf, dumb, and blind will say,”See? They looked and found nothing. You’re just a sore loser,” and continue to miss the whole point, ignore the whole problem.
First Michigan town(Benton Harbor)just taken over by the state, dismantling local governance. Made possible by new draconian emergency policy introduced by the new “small government”, “freedom loving”, “Constitution upholding” Republican corporate fascist governor.
We’re either going to have some kind of revolution here soon are going all the way to hell.
So ws this the “investigation going back 5 years?”
Was it something else only related to the specific race in question?
Hey if Prosser is going to fight a recount tooth and nail, that sounds like a great reason to have a recount.
Anyone who believes electronically-counted election results are trustworthy because they’ve seen no evidence of fraud should also believe that Fukushima Prefecture is safe because there’s no visible sign of radiation.
Keep in mind this is the same organization that signed off on and missed the 2006 17,000 ballot gap between votes and
ballots cast in Waukesha county.
They are NOW investigating that only after bloggers found this while going over that counties election history. A total state HAND recount is needed here.
Hey Wisconsin, you have paper ballots for a reason, so you can sit down and count each one to find out who really won. With the motivated forces you’ve been demonstrating to the rest of the country, it’s the leadership we deperately need!
Since this is a Wisconsin thread, please let me share something that may appear OT, but in fact is likely a critical piece of information to understand the attacks on workers and the ongoing effort to defund public schools.
Believe it or not, the chair of the State Education Committee has a direct personal tie to a quasi-private organization that directly benefits from his attacks on public schools!
He is literally taking money from children and enriching himself and proclaiming to the world that he is an “expert” on education.
LUTHER OLSON IS A FRAUD and the scandal is EVEN BIGGER THAN THE HOPPER SEX STORY (fond du lac)!!!!!!
While there are other areas where olsen’s image doesn’t match reality (not a successful businessman, he inherited family business and ran it into bankruptcy, though to be fair, it may have been due to the republican economic policies olsen supports, though there are allegations of criminality too).
Please get this story out: olsen had an adulterous affair with the director of state ed agency CESA 6. They now say they are married (when it suits their purposes, someone is trying to verify status).
Wade and olsen each left their families (typical repug values) to shack up in Ripon, WI. This is all common knowledge in that community.
It is a conflict of interest for him to sit on the education committee – he has been advocating defunding pubic schools for years and each time he votes for policies that reduces school budgets, it is likely to kick additional business to his “wife†at CESA 6.
Wisconsin’s CESAs were founded as nonprofit state agencies, somehow, they became for profit. So luther olsen DIRECTLY FINANACIALLY BENEFITS from his scam education reforms.
Here’s an interesting piece of information: joan wade is formerly joan h. spillner and she held olsen’s seat prior to him being elected (olsen was a school board member in Ripon, but has not real ed credentials). The records show that joan spillner got divorced in 1999 – while this needs to be confirmed, it appears that the divorce was over her adulterous relationship with luther olsen.
He is a thief – complaints filed with ethics board have yet to yeild results BUT if it can be shown he has voted for any bill that benefited his wife (and he has – HE IS CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE) it is a serious breach.
CAN YOU HELP HERE?
Fact: olsen’s only real “credentials†to be the chair of the education committee is he sleeps with CESA 6 Director JOAN WADE!
This is a bigger scandal than Hopper because olsen is actually using his position to financially benefit himself – has been doing it for years!
Please think about this, brad: election fraud does not exist in a vacuum. To really get to the bottom of this, we need to find the political interests that have a stake in doing whatever it takes to stay in office.
The story I am sharing, and more, are all related! Perhaps the population will be “more-ready” for a dialog if they are told about the corruption that election fraud is meant to protect (or create).
The story above is not being reported anywhere. HELP!
This is what I posted on Journal Sentinel on line. Let’s see how the trolls on both sides react.
So, before anyone continues that there is no need for a recount, let me give you this bit of information. Off the WI Accountability statement about the canvass, they found a missing vote for Prosser and 3 for Kloppenburg. So, she gains 2 votes. That might not seem like a lot.
But, these optical scan machines have the undercount problem. So, Kloppenburg needs to request a hand count. Take out Kathy Nichols role for a moment and all the cries about fraud in heavily democrat areas. Instead let me ask each of you one simple question and please answer honestly.
Are you concerned about the validity of this election? If so, with the margin so close and potential errors of the counting machines, our democracy DEMANDS a recount. If you say “no”, then all you care about is your side winning and to he** with the will of the voters. Next time, it could be Scott Walker or any of the Republican senators under recall. If you don’t care about a recount now, I don’t want to hear crying should they lose. And, if you care now, you better care then. This is about our Constitution!!
So the results were close enough for government work eh?
Can Kloppeburg demand a state wide hand count if she pays for it?..I am sure she can raise funds from from across the entire country. i would certainly contribute.
Diane asked @ 9:
Only if she receives a court order allowing her to do so. Otherwise, all she can get is a machine “recount” (though, in WI, according to the recount procedures, each campaign is allowed to examine each paper ballot before its run through the op-scanner again, so it could be considered a “virtual hand count”, of sorts anyway.)
Jay T I think the vast majority of the people here care far more that our election process is accurate. I would prefer a full statewide hand recount and whoever wins that will be the winner, whether it is Prosser or Kloppenburg. I just want to see public confidence be somewhat restored in our election process. I would prefer that electronic ballot casting machines be outlawed but more than that I want to see this election validated by a hand recount. Unfortunately the intricacies of the Wisconsin recount process is not that favorable to a clear and transparent recount. Hopefully Kloppenburg’s group is clever at utilizing the full letter of the law.
That sucks.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/blog/article_8857f3f6-6b7e-11e0-b678-001cc4c03286.html?mode=comments&page=1
Thank you Brad for the information you post.
It helps me as I try to address the issue if election integrity.
Peace,
Sark
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/comments/index.php?ID=8247
Upon first hearing the news that yesterday’s election for a seat on Wisconsin’s supreme court is extremely close and likely to involve a recount, three thoughts come quickly to mind:
First, this recount (if it occurs) will be an interesting test of Wisconsin’s relatively new Government Accountability Board, which is intended as a nonpartisan alternative to election administration conducted by partisan secretaries of state. Here at Moritz we have studied the creation of this board, and Dan Tokaji in particular has written about the potential benefits of this institutional reform. Therefore, it will be worth comparing how this board fares during a contentious statewide recount, in contrast to the different recent experiences in Florida (2000), Washington (2004), and Minnesota (2008). The comparison with neighboring Minnesota may prove particularly fruitful. Although Minnesota did not have a statutory mechanism to guarantee a nonpartisan canvassing board to conduct the Coleman-Franken recount, I (among others) have argued that Minnesota lucked into an operationally nonpartisan board for that recount. Therefore, one wonders what if any difference it might make if one has a nonpartisan board already statutorily in place. (Of course, it is important to know exactly what jurisdiction Wisconsin’s nonpartisan board may or may not have relative to the conduct of the recount itself, a matter I have not yet examined today. The nonpartisan board may not serve its purpose if operationally the recount is conducted by other potentially partisan officials at either the state or local level–which would be something like the opposite of the Minnesota situation: a good law ineffectual in practice, rather than a suboptimal law that was operationally effective.)
To Wisconsin Resident:
By Law All CESAs must be, and are right now, non profit.
And my wife who is as left wing as I am—we both voted for KloJo—says Wade is an excellent administrator of CESA 6. She works with her and know of the valuable work her staff does.