|
folkbum's rambles and rantsJay Bullock's journal of politics, music, and education. |
| ||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | ![]() |
||||||||||||||
Friday, December 16, 2011Republicans still blaming the GAB for following the law
by folkbum
|
There's an old saw among lawyers--well, I don't know if any of them use it, but us common folk have heard it a lot and assume it is so--about how to win your case. When the facts are on your side, they say, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither the facts nor the law is on your side, pound the table. Yesterday, the Wisconsin GOP pounded the table so hard it darn near broke. Here are the facts: United Wisconsin and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin are two-thirds of the way to their goal of 720,000 signatures to recall Governor Walker (540,000 is the trigger number, but they want a cushion). A certainty--though not technically a fact, yet--is that some of those signatures will turn out to be invalid, either because they are duplicates or phony or incomplete. This happens all the time in signature drives, and is why there needs to be a cushion. It is a fact that UW and DPW have announced that they will be trying to identify and remove those invalid signatures before turning them in (and have already started, reflecting that process in the number released yesterday). Still, that in just one month, more than half a million signatures have been collected and turned into the groups for collation and verification, has to rankle Walker and his supporters. Here is the law: Wisconsin Statutes §.9.10, which governs recalls. The Government Accountability Board, charged with overseeing all elections in the state including recalls, has some duties to perform when it comes to signatures in a recall election. There's a list of reasons why the GAB could reject a signature, including duplication or phoniness, as well as things like the signer being too young to vote or having a bad date next to the signature. The law also places duties and responsibilities onto the parties collecting signatures and the objects of the recall who would challenge those signatures. Note, for example, paragraph (g): "The burden of proof for any challenge rests with the individual bringing the challenge." In other words, the GAB is not the party responsible for finding and challenging duplicate or phony signatures; rather, it's the challengers, by law, who have the burden to prove that a signature is invalid. Now, what the GAB has said is that if there are obvious flaws or suspicious aspects to a signature--like a possible phony one--they will flag it to make sure the challenger sees it and investigates it. But the GAB is not empowered to make all these challenges itself. (And, as noted, United Wisconsin is going to try to verify the signatures before they turn them in to minimize how many can be challenged.) So, here's the table: Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and the state Republican Party director sued the state's elections and ethics agency in Waukesha on Thursday over its handling of duplicate and bogus signatures in the ongoing recall effort against the governor. [. . .]Why, yes, allowing multiple signatures would be a bad thing, and that's why §.9.10 of the Wisconsin Statutes prohibits counting them. Here's the law: "(i) If a challenger can establish that a person signed the recall petition more than once, the 2nd and subsequent signatures may not be counted." Wait, wha? The law says that a challenger has to establish that the signature is a duplicate? You don't say! Clearly, the law does not give the GAB any authority itself to seek out and eliminate duplicates. Your Wisconsin GOP is suing to demand that the GAB do exactly that. They are doing the same thing--suing the GAB--because the GAB earlier insisted on following the redistricting law as it was written; that case is still pending. Both cases need to be laughed out of court. (Note that as part of their reform efforts, the state Republicans changed the law governing where lawsuits against the state could be filed. It used to be Dane County, where, you know, the government lives. But now plaintiffs can venue-shop, and both suits against the GAB were filed in ultra-conservative Waukesha County.) It is utterly unremarkable anymore that the state Republican Party has such disrespect for the law. As if we needed any more reasons to recall them. Labels: Recall, Republican Party, Scott Walker Archives05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010 02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010 03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010 04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010 05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 - 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 - 08/01/2010 08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010 09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 - 12/01/2010 12/01/2010 - 01/01/2011 01/01/2011 - 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 - 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 - 04/01/2011 04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011 05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011 06/01/2011 - 07/01/2011 07/01/2011 - 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 - 09/01/2011 09/01/2011 - 10/01/2011 10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011 11/01/2011 - 12/01/2011 12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012 01/01/2012 - 02/01/2012 |
| |||||||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||