As you may have heard, there is an election in Wisconsin today. It is a contested election for the state Supreme Court. Apparently, when an incumbent is seeking reelection, as is the case today, these are normally sleepy affairs with the incumbent coasting to reelection. Not so today: the incumbent is a Republican who is thought to be sympathetic with Governor Walker’s agenda, while his challenger is a Democrat who isn’t.
As of this writing, 76% of the results are in, and the challenger (Joanne Kloppenburg) has a narrow 7,000 vote lead over the incumbent (David Prosser) out of over a million counted. The mere fact that it’s even close suggests that this is not a business-as-usual judicial election in Wisconsin, and that’s a good thing. The fact that she might actually win, well, that’s huge.
Stay tuned. I’ll update periodically.
UPDATE (12:06 am): 85% in, and Kloppenburg is now up 24,000. Must … not … get … hopes … up …
UPDATE (12:10 am): And just like that, the lead is down to 5,000 with 88% in. Wow.
UPDATE (12:29 am): 92% in, and Prosser has taken a 600 vote lead. I smell a recount. That should be good for a few laughs.
UPDATE (1:02 am): 97% in, and Prosser holds about a 2,000 vote lead – but there are still some pro-Kloppenburg precincts yet to report in. Specifically, Eau Claire county, which so far has gone for Kloppenburg 60-40, is only 2/3 in, and is quite populous. However, there are also a few pro-Prosser counties that have not fully reported. So, fingers crossed.
UPDATE (9 am): Over 12 hours since the polls closed, and there are still votes to be counted. So far, 99% are in, and Prosser is holding an 800 vote lead out of nearly 1.5 million cast. One report shows some additional numbers that cut Prosser’s lead down to about 600. Either way, the difference is much less than 0.1% of the votes, which seems likely almost to guarantee a recount. I’m no expert on WI recount law, but in light of the climate, it’s hard to imagine a different outcome. Whew.
Given a Republican legislature and governor, perhaps we can hope that SEIU and ACORN induced fraudulent ballots can be ferreted out, and discarded.
Seriously, if that tired old right-wing paranoid theme is the best you can do, maybe you should have stayed on hiatus.
Plus I thought ACORN shut down when the Congress rushed to defund it based on flimsy and, as it turns out fraudulent, evidence.
for the crazies to blame all the problems of the world on them. Better that they don’t, in fact.
I’d appreciate an example of fraud on a scale of 600 ballots in modern American history. Thanks.
… right.
Regardless of who wins, this election demonstrates why we in Massachusetts are fortunate to have appointed, professional members of the judiciary rather than political hacks who must raise scads of money and make campaign promises. Prosser was a partisan legislator before he joined the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
case in point: the worse-than-useless Governor’s Council.
<
p>Still better than voting our judicial picks in, though.
6 for agreeing on judicial elections
4 for your slap at the Governors Council
I’d love to make tens of thousands of dollars a year for getting to show up to the occasional zero-accountability meeting, while I get relatives hack jobs. Such is the life of a Governor’s Council member.
Governor’s Councilors make pretty low five-figures as I recall, though if they insist on meeting Wednesday at noon they limit the talent pool. I’d be happy to see a four-figure stipend if they met on evenings or weekends so people with other jobs (besides attorneys who already make plenty) could serve.
<
p>If meetings aren’t open they should be. They are elected and Manning even gets regular opposition, usually from within the party.
<
p>I guess I’ve never gotten upset as some about elected officials making job recommendations. The law should be enforced, but maybe it’s the law itself that needs work. Manning claimed her relative was qualified and frankly some people need a boost. It’s not as if the GC controls Probation’s budget or that Manning otherwise threatened O’Brien.
HAHAHA oh dear oh dear. Honestly, when asked by the media, is anyone going to say, “well, you got me. I recommended my cousin’s brother-in-law even though he was not qualified for the job.”
<
p>Come on Christopher. I know you have an odd passion for archaic and obsolete colonial relics like the Governor’s Council. But for heaven’s sake, don’t willfully blind yourself to what actually goes on there.
The Globe article says, “Manning called Probation Commissioner John J. O’Brien and told him about her brother’s work history, which included a stint as a court security officer.” I took the reference to court security as a suggestion that he had at least a little relevant work history and not merely an unqualified relative. I also noticed in the next paragraph that Councilor Manning was listed as a sponsor, so apparently there is some transperancy about this, which is a good thing.
It is hard to imagine a worse outcome. What is going to happen in a recount? It will wind up in the courts, and appealed, eventually to the very court to which the contending candidates were seeking election. Whomever loses will have a parade of villians: ACORN, Koch, The Man From UNCLE, and will have this or that ballot to wave on TV while complaining that the victorious side ran the election as if Wisconsin were Haiti. Losing True Believers will lap it up.
<
p>It is hard to imagine a worse outcome for the Wisconsin judiciary, because in any event, it loses. And, despite the disastrous, fraudulent, and wildly unpopular actions of the Wisconsin GOP, and the view that this election was a referendum on such, it seems that those who don’t think the GOP’s actions to have been disastrous, fraudulent, and wildly unpopular seem– somewhat surprisingly– to number about the same as those who do.
<
p>And so roughly half of the voters in the state are likely to wind up thinking that the entire judiciary is a fraud, which will simply begin to erode the ability of the entire government to govern at all, regardless of whether conservatively or liberally.
<
p>
(a) recounts are trouble, and (b) judicial elections are a terrible idea. By “whew,” I didn’t mean, “thank goodness for that result.” I meant, “whew, that was exhausting, and we’re not done yet.” đŸ™‚
The mounting instances of too-close-to-call elections, in which whomever loses runs immediately into court, and everyone accuses everyone else of voter fraud, are profoundly depressing. They are polarizing and undermine the political legitimacy of the government. The introduction of recall petitions significantly exacerbates this problem, which seems to be accelerating.
<
p>To me, this seems like a significant threat to our republican (small “r”) government, and a far greater threat than “corporate money” in politics. (In the same sense that Lake Superior is a far greater lake than the duck pond in the Public Garden.)
Media makes money from advertising. That means media revenue depends on ratings (“impression” counts). Ratings are maximized when every election is close. There is an enormously strong financial incentive for media corporations to keep elections, especially elections with national interest, as close as possible. Whether intentionally or not, the media work hard and effectively to keep elections as close as possible.
<
p>I agree with you that this is a significant threat to our republican (with a small “r”) government. I think we’re seeing another example of a failure of the “free market” approach — in this case, the free-market approach to “news” coverage.
And by pffffff, I meant, “pffffff like thanks for the hot tip David … pffffff”
based on the AP spreadsheet, Kloppenburg wins by 334 votes after all precincts have been reported.
<
p>Prosser campaign director:
<
p>
and military ballots. So don’t count your chickens. However, it does look reasonably promising. I still think a recount is awfully likely, given the razor-thin margin. And, really, when we’re talking about a margin of <0.1%, there’s nothing wrong with a recount.
with the momentum that Kloppenburg has, I see a recount increasing her lead not decreasing.
The votes are cast already.
on a daily basis, as what we have seen with provisional ballots more are breaking toward Kloppenburg. Momentum has occurred over the past month and we’ve seen it in the votes cat overall, it’s a nice snide remark but also pretty stupid.
Because they have same day registration, most voters who would vote provisionally in other states just re-register instead. Of course, this is one of the first things the GOP legislature and Walker did away with, but their new “voter protection” law hasn’t taken effect yet.
but I need to see a link suggesting there’s ample absentee ballots left. Everything I’ve read today at Swing State and Dkos suggests otherwise. The only large numbers of absentee ballots that will get added to the total will likely amount to human error in not having counted them earlier.
I don’t mean I don’t trust you, David — just that I’m interested in knowing better and seeing how it fits in with everything else I’ve learned over the past 24 hours. These current-event things are notoriously inaccurate, so it’s important to ground these sorts of things in known facts or with the people on the ground.)
This reminds us of the terrible representation that Wisconsin (some parts of it at least) sends to the Congress, including Ryan and Sensenbrenner.
<
p>And let’s not forget that this was the home state of Joe McCarthy. I am old enough to remember people praising McCarthy. Come to think of it, those people sounded very much like the people who support Republicans today (and unlike the reasonable Republicans that we used to have).
I have a feeling Charles Dickens would be quite enamored with it.
<
p>In fairness, there are plenty of states that could fall in this category.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal Politics Blog, is a good resource.
<
p>Kloppenburg has declared victory, as well she should at this point.
<
p>There is a small amount of provisional ballots, which will not have an impact. Nothing on absentee ballots yet.
From what I hear, they count them with all the other ballots on the night of the election, and I believe the absentee ballots have to be in by the day of the election. So if there are any absentee ballots that haven’t been counted, it’s probably a mistake that they weren’t (which is certainly possible, though probably not in huge volumes).
<
p>There may be some number of provisional ballots, but probably not many from a report I’ve read at Swing State Project from an election-day clerk poll worker who says they’re incredibly rare. Furthermore, provisional ballots tend to go Democrat.
<
p>At this point, it’s likely the lead will hold up at least to the recount, and at that point, it’s really anyone’s guess what happens. I’m prepared to say Klop’s chances of winning the inevitable recount is something north of 50%, but how far north is anyone’s question. 225 votes is a really slim margin with 1.5 million cast.
Kloppenburg’s 204 vote lead wouldn’t be too bad prior to a recount, but there’s definitely no guarantee that the pre-recount certification won’t change things significantly. I think the numbers shifted pretty dramatically in the Franken-Coleman race even before the recount, because several precincts had reporting errors on Election Day.
I was under the impression that military ballots merely had to be postmarked by election day. I’m too lazy to find a source, but you were too đŸ˜›
<
p>Anybody want to do the legwork?
I have to say The Google did the legwork, I just typed in “Wisconsin absentee ballots” :p
<
p>http://gab.wi.gov/elections-vo…
<
p>
<
p>So, that would make it seem as though soldiers could send in late absentees. Yet, a little further digging from that following the links on that link has exceptions to the exceptions:
<
p>
<
p>Emphasis mine. The way I read this is that because this isn’t a “fall election,” there are no exceptions for “active-away” soldiers — meaning any ballots received after Tuesday night wouldn’t be counted. If this had been a September or November election, though, they would have been.
<
p>So… no more absentee ballots.
although there are always SOState rules and precedents which might not make that exactly the case. Still, I now believe it until I see a compelling claim otherwise.
WSJ is reporting that human error in reporting votes to AP has resulted in additional votes being reported today http://online.wsj.com/article/…
<
p>
Here