Appeals Court Vacates Waukesha Judge's Order on State Review of Recall Petitions
State elections chief says requiring a public searchable database would be expensive and impractical. The state might use a searchable database in its review and enter names, not addresses.
Videos
Updated (Feb. 3): An appeals court has vacated a Waukesha County Circuit Court's order that state elections officials do more to ferret out duplicate signatures on Recall Walker petitions, saying the court erred in not allowing recall organizers to intervene in the case.
The decision by the Court of Appeals District IV panel based in Madison means Waukesha County Circuit Judge J. Mac Davis will need to re-hear the case, allowing for input from representatives of both campaigns — that of Gov. Scott Walker and the recalls.
"We conclude that the recall committees are entitled to intervene as a matter of right," the appellate court ruled. "It cannot be seriously disputed that the recall committees have an interest in the procedures that will be used to review their recall petitions and strike names."
(Feb. 1 story): Making petitions to recall Gov. Scott Walker available online in a searchable database would be too costly and labor-intensive, a state elections leader told WisconsinEye senior producer Steve Walters.
In a WisconsinEye video interview Wednesday, Kevin Kennedy, director and general counsel of the Government Accountability Board, said that groups who are considering entering the 153,335 pages into a searchable database have "thousands" of volunteers, while the GAB has help from 50 reviewers.
"A searchable database wasn't something that was practical or economically feasible from our standpoint," Kennedy told Walters.
"When we do our duplicate review, we may have a searchable database but it will be limited just to names. We will not include addresses in that because our focus is only to implement that part of the court's decision that deals with being proactively looking for duplicates."
WisconsinEye.com has the full 23-minute video interview.
The GAB posted the recall petitions online Tuesday evening after weighing the legality of whether names and addresses of domestic violence victims or other signers could be redacted for personal safety concerns. The decision: No redactions were made because unlike voting, signing a recall petition did not carry an expectation of privacy.
Volunteers for the Republican Party began analyzing hard copies of the recall petitions last weekend, and Tea Party groups have said they have nearly 10,000 volunteers nationally willing to help verify the validity of the petition signatures.
Recall organizers say they have signatures from more than 1 million state residents, nearly double the estimated 540,000 required to schedule a gubernatorial recall election that would be only the third in the nation's history.
Craig
3:56 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The GAB should have taken the time and spent the money to make sure of the number of signatures and their validity.
This is yet another example of how bass ackwards the Government is.
This basically means that dead people may have signed and vacant lots are used as some addresses. No doubt there are people's signatures included that were fraudeulant.
Nik Bramblett
9:28 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
The issue, of course, as usual, is not about "invalid signatures," any more than the ridiculous voter ID law is about "voter fraud." There should NOT be a disclosure of people's names and addresses online for everyone to see, so that the ridiculous bullies and thugs fighting AGAINST the recall can harass them... this is not even hard to figure out. WHY do folks want to spend a lot of money, from a government that according to Walker "is broke," to create an unwieldy, expensive, unnecessary online database? Why does the PUBLIC need to have the names and addresses of recall petition signers in order for the GAB to verify them? Ask yourself WHY and a whole lot of ridiculous right-wing accusations and assertions become obvious.
Craig
9:51 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Right Nik; there is NO voter fraud because we haven't looked for it.
If a tree falls in the woods and noone is there- does it make a sound?
Public records law says the names are available- petitioners knew this before collecting the signatures of all the felons. Anyone who didn't know this was hiding under a rock.
FYI: The GAB already verified the signatures. Walker is spending money (not taxpayor money) to verify the validity. Money to create the database is also not taxpayor money. This is not NEW NEWS.
You are really out of touch with reality; perhaps you tasted the Kool Aide of the lefties.
That being said; most of the ridiculous accusations have been LEFTIST based, as the left has been uninformed and misinformed for a long time. (you are a prime example)
James R Hoffa
4:36 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
A quick review of the Senate recall petitions reveals several invalid, duplicate, and fraudulent signatures, so clearly, the Dems didn't vet the petition sheets as closely as they claimed to. That was yet another in the long list of lies from team Tate and Zielinski. With that kind of record, the GAB should definitely be giving more scrutiny to the recall petitions. I only wish there was a law that made the filing recall committee legally and personally liable for the associated costs if the recall election is unsuccessful in unseating an incumbent elected official.
Craig
4:58 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Hoffa: Craig stands with you on this.
Clearly, there was intent to cause difficulty verifying the signatures. It is their way of payback- cost the GOP $$ to attempt to verify them, because they knew the limited scope of the GAB process.
Many hours of date entry will need to be done. Then we will see a portion of the false signatures thrown out. I reviewed several hundred of the Walker recall petitions and discovered they are hard to read and people can not spell Milwaukee.
Once the election has the "do over" (which is what this is really about), I hope Walker makes more cuts to the same people to repay the favor.
Let's hope that database is finished soon, as I am eager to do some checks myself. One million signatures on 5 million pages is a pain in the rear to view on line.
Nik Bramblett
9:29 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
How many is "several"? HALF?
Dean Michaels
9:37 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Citizens that are against the recall were signing these petitions just to cause what is going on now, fully knowing it would call into question the validity of the signatures.
Don Niederfrank
4:51 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
James, et al.,
It seems to me that one might be able to take a statistically significant random sampling and come to a pretty well-established conclusion that there are enough signatures for a recall or not or that it is close enough for more detailed scrutiny and cost.
After all, the central issue is whether there will or will not be a recall election.
If the odds of finding enough signatures to disqualify to not hold the election are...200:1 then it doesn't make sense (or cents) to me to spend a huge amount of time and money "picking the fly specs out of the pepper" so to speak. Does it?
Craig
5:08 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Don: Just because the signature look legit doesn't mean it is. How many are dead people? How many are addresses that are ficticious? How many are forged by people meaning to do good for their own cause? The mentality of : I'll sign my neighbor's name because I know he would if he were here personally.
If you throw enough stink against the wall, some of it will stick.
So, placing the odds at 200:1 is premature and a reach, at best.
Voter ID has been critiqued because there is no proof of voter fraud; but how do you know if you do not look for the fraud?
Same applies here.
CowDung
5:22 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
I took a sampling of 3 sets of signatures--the first 50 sheets, the last 50 sheets, and sheets 5001-5050. The average number of signatures of those 3 sets came to 302.667 signatures. If that average fairly represents the rest of the sheets, there are only 605,333 signatures that have been submitted. Granted, a sample size of 3 sets out of 2000 may not be truly representative of the count, but it certainly appears that far fewer than 1 million signatures have been submitted.
I'm thinking that the odds of finding enough signatures to disqualify seem better than 200:1...
Bob McBride
5:08 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
For weeks now we've been hearing about how closely scrutinized these forms were by the group that turned them in. Further checking seems to indicate, so far at least, that that's far from the case. If we can spend an enormous about of the state's time and money going through the process of bringing multiple government officials up for recall, it certainly seems quite reasonable that we spend some additional time and money checking to see if it was done so properly, particularly given the findings, as mentioned.
Much was made of the 1.9MM figure as if the numbers were so large as to assure not only the recall, but a successful series of associated elections. Much was made of the integrity of the process itself. If one or both of those assertions turn out to be less than accurate, it certainly is an indication that this whole process, if successful, will result in the replacing of a supposedly flawed sitting government with one that may not be arguably better than the one it seeks to replace.
Don Niederfrank
5:27 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Bob,
I mean only to ask the question--what further checking has been done and what do we know with regard to how far it is not the case. I don't disagree, but it needs to be the case that nearly half of examined signatures can be invalidated, right? I've not seen anyone say they have examined...say 100 signatures and found nearly half invalid.
I don't doubt that a number (who knows?) of the petition bearers were less than rigorous or even malicious in their work. What is unknown is the extent of error.
Bob McBride
5:45 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Don,
I don't know that it's possible at this point to even take a stab at a number, other than to say that, based on some of what's being reported, it appears that the rock solid status we were given for the number of signatures by those who collected them is definitely not the case. Just as those who collected them were reluctant to speculate on how many they had until they turned them in officially, I don't think you can expect those examining the public records, which were released fully just yesterday, to come up with an estimation of how many bad ones they expect to find.
Again, I go back to the principle of it, which, frankly, has been the argument behind this recall from the get-go. That people are entitled to utilize a rather weak law for political purposes. Certainly, those who are the target of those actions should be afforded the same ability to utilize what's available to them to attempt to defend against this extraordinary political action.
The time to be concerned about excess cost and wasted time was before this whole process was started.
Nik Bramblett
9:32 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Are you suggesting that you truly believe that there are less than 540,000 valid recall signatures for Walker? I mean, c'mon... if HALF of all the signatures are thrown out, there will STILL be more than 540,000.
Bob McBride
10:06 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Gotta be done unless you want this thing to end up in court, Nik. You should know that. You don't just get your way because you say 1MM people signed some petitions.
CowDung
3:09 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Nik:
From my signature counts I made with 11 of the 2000 sets of sheets submitted, the recall effort has only submitted around 600,000 signatures to begin with. It's not going to take a very high percentage of disqualified signatures to drop the number of valid signatures below the 540,000 threshold...
Jay Sykes
4:01 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@CD... Using the data you provided:A sample of 11 petitions in a population of 2000 petitions gives one about a 30% margin of error, at 95 confidence;an expected maximum of 800,000 total signings. If your sampling remained consistent, with 20 petitions, one would expect about 700,000 signings.
Don Niederfrank
5:22 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
@Craig, I didn't mean to suggest that 200:1 was the established ratio or anything--only to suggest that it might be most cost effective to randomly select a portion of the signatures, scrutinize them as per the questions you raise and find out whether if the process was continued with the entire collection there would be a worthwhile chance of defeating the recall effort. In other words, (and I'm not statistician so I'm only guessing at these figures) if 1000 (?) signatures were scrupulously examined and it was discovered that 10 of them were invalid then one might reasonably conclude that only 1% of the signatures (give or take) would be invalidated if the whole lot was gone through and that it wouldn't be worth the cost/effort.
This sort of reasoning from a sample is done all the time with polls.
Is that clearer?
Bob McBride
5:56 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
This isn't a poll, Don. A .1% sampling of the total number of voters in the elections in question wouldn't have moved the recall process forward (or kept it from moving forward, depending on the results). Both the collection of signatures and the verification of those signatures have major consequences associated with them. You can't logically defend a system whereby, on the one hand, you have to meet a specific number and, on the other, you settle for the outcome of a .1% sampling. Regardless of which side you fall on in terms of this recall, you know you'd be opening the door for court challenges that would take up more time and more expense than is currently being expended on the verification process.
Craig
6:25 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
I think you will find if there are fraudulent signatures, thay will be clustered. Specifically only certain radical petition circulators will be responsible, if any.
So based upon that assumption, one could not use a small sample to predict the accuracy of the whole lot.
Michael
5:26 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
I say spend whatever we need to create the searchable datatbase, then divide the amount evenly among the people whose signatures were legitmate and bill them.
Michael
5:27 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
They wanted it,they pay the extra cost.
Don Niederfrank
6:02 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
@Bob, you're right. It isn't a poll. Good point. Re. "That people are entitled to utilize a rather weak law for political purposes. Certainly, those who are the target of those actions should be afforded the same ability to utilize what's available to them to attempt to defend against this extraordinary political action." Absolutely.
@Michael, an interesting thought experiment--how many of the signers would have deferred if they/we had known it would cost $X. :-)
Indeed, it's an interesting thing to consider with regard to =all= government expenditures. How much do I want to pay to have my street plowed? My neighbor's child educated? Downtown trees protected? An aircraft carrier built? A war fought? etc.
Michael
6:18 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
That's exactly what I'm trying to get at. You put that very eloquently sir. Someday when I'm famous, I'd like to have you as my PR person.
Don Niederfrank
7:53 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Thanks for the compliment, Michael, but I fear you would find me too far to the left of center to work with comfortably. :-)
Allan Hanson
7:24 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
I worked hard on this recall effort. I ensured honesty and completeness with all of the signatures I collected or over saw. Prove these claims of fraud or be silent. Walker has caused serious damage and should be punished as should any one tied to ALEC. If the data base was searchable I could continue to verify the validity of the data base. There is no honest way to measure the cost of the Walker damage. A searchable database would in some measure mitigate this horrid cost the righties are bellyaching about.
Craig
7:38 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Allan;
Actually it will either validate your integrity, or prove you to be wrong.
Let the process speak for itself.
Greg
8:55 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
As for proving the claims of fraud, in good time. This serious damage that you claim Walker caused, you should prove that or you should STFU!
I worked hard getting Walker elected. I am happy to have him as my Governor.
Terry
11:16 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
How many people worked on the recall effort Allen. Are you prepared to stake your reputation on all of them being as honest or dedicated as you are?
While you yourself may be above board, there is no way you could vouch for every signature and organizer in your movement.
No honest man should fear the light of day. An open, searchable data base is not something anybody should oppose, unless they fear that there are some shadows that might be exposed.
R Denis
8:55 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Lets start with this Honest Al. See petition page marked 2402 line 7 for instance for you blinded liberals. On that page you have a signature reading James W Weishan. So called James W Weishan use an address in Greendale, WI. The address in Greendale WI happens to be for a residence of a person with an entirely differend name. Getting the message yet Al? The name of the actual owner of the home shows up on a Friends of Walker contributor list. Wonder where that address came from there AL. Count the ways you liberals cheat, you will never be done.
Craig
9:06 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
So Allan, looks like you were defensive for a reason. No integrity to be verified I guess?
Shame on you, and shame on me for giving you the benefit of a doubt.
Randy1949
10:53 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@R Denis -- "On that page you have a signature reading James W Weishan. So called James W Weishan use an address in Greendale, WI. The address in Greendale WI happens to be for a residence of a person with an entirely differend name."
A person renting a room in that household? A person living in that home for an extended stay? It isn't unheard of in this economy. As long as they're eligible Wisconsin voters . . .
Dean Michaels
9:44 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Bravo, I couldn't agree more.
mau
9:27 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
They should require that anyone collecting signatures for a recall, get them notarized, attesting to the fact that all the information is correct, accurate and verifiable. Then if any one of these pages is brought up in court, the person who collected the signatures can decide whether to commit perjury or not.
Why is the GAB and anti-Walker people so opposed to spending a few hundred thousand more to verify the signatures. It is the anti-Walker people who spoke out and said $9 million or whatever cost, is worth it.
Craig
9:35 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The GAB would need years to input the data. They are Government employees!
Volunteers will do a more accurate and efficient job.
Those who collected signatures still could be called to testify- we have to wait on that one.
Anxiously awaiting the database.....
clark
10:13 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
@Allan- 'Walker has caused serious damage and should be punished'. Are you his father? Should he stand in the corner for 5 minutes? Your claim is ridiculous. He's balanced the budget, reigned in spending and asked people to contribute SOME to their pensions. The private sector does this all by themselves - no handouts! Did you want your taxes to go up to balance the budget? I guess that's not a bad option as long as you're on the government gravy train by having all the tax payers of WI paying for your retirement. Get a clue- the WIN by Walker in this unwarranted recall will be bigger than the one in he had in 2010. Be ready for it!!
Mike
10:17 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
I am an independent voter. I did sign the recall petition (legally). I do think there will be a few invalid signatures (my guess somewhere around the 10k mark) but nearly not enough to invalidate the recall election. If the numbers hold true and that nearly 1 million people truly did want this guy recalled, I think walker is in for a huge battle and will NOT win. Just my opinion. Almost 100% of the number of votes Walker received (1.2 million) were cast to recall him. I don't see many people that previously did not vote for him say they will vote for him now. It is the opposite. Many people that voted for him will not this time around so the number of votes received I believe will be far less.
As the investigation continues and more apples keep falling from the tree the fingers will all be pointing at 1 person who the FBI will soon be talking to (assuming they have not already). In my opinion Walker gets charged with conspiracy to commit fraud with Archer, Wink and company. Then how many people will vote for him. Actually the GOP in trying to buy time is doing the DOJ a favor in that they can further their investigation and more will be uncovered soon. The sooner the recall the better for Walker before more comes out of the investigation. there is quite a bit already for people to start leaning the other way against him. You find it harder and harder to keep defending this guy.
cj
8:02 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
NewsFLASH: This recall is unnecessary, expensive, ignorant, and Impractical!
Cant' have it both ways!
Walker
8:51 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
All it takes is for Walker to say there is enough signatures for a recall election & they won't have to spend another penny on verifying & get on with the election. He's having way too much fun collecting millions from out of state influences to want it too end early. He's not about saving the state money or looking out for Wisconsin, only appeasing his bosses (Koch, Citgroup, AIG, etc) & hoping they allow him in their club.
Craig
9:04 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
As a taxpayor, I don't want to foot the bill for a do over election unless it is warranted.
This verification of signatures doesn't cost the taxpayor a dime.
Some of you people have no problem wasting other people's money.
Shame on you.
Walker
9:17 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Right.
Walker
9:52 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Walker had the rules changed so he wouldn't have to pay for the verification as all previous politicians being recalled had to. It is being done by taxpayer dollars.
Steve
11:48 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
You guys forced a recall and are complaining about spending of state money?
lol
morninmist
12:47 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Steve,
You missed Walker's (the poster) point. Nothing new. Just change the subject.!! Or maybe it is your inability to grasp the truth. It is Gov Walker who is causing the extra money to taxpayers because he sought and got special treatment!
Walker
11:41 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
Because that's how they roll. "Look a chicken!!!"
Steve
9:22 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Can't wait for the first person to apply for a job, I search the signatures and pull up their name.
Sorry, position has been filled. .
Payback bidges
Mike
10:24 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Get a life Steve. So if someone also has a different religous affiliation you deny them employment? If they are a race you don't approve of, you deny them? Denying someone employment becaue they don't agree with your Walker antics is quite childish and foolish. Actually we will be seeing your name on the lawsuits filed on behalf of the people you discriminate against. You may want to consult an attorney now because you will need one shortly. Sickenning, absolutely sickenning. I own a small business and could care less how people exercise their constitutional rights.
Steve
10:42 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Cry more.
My company my rules. Did I say anything about race or religion? Let me look up...
nope I didn't.
We exercised our constitutional right November 2010 and voted Walker. Signing a piece of paper because you lost an election is not a qualified employee, it shows when you don't get your way you will cry and cry and cry until you do. Why in the world would you want an employee like that on your payroll looking over a company you started from scratch?!
Payback bidges
Jake
1:24 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
I think that's a great idea. Save those folks some time in realizing you might be a huge d-bag of a boss. Also, keep in mind it goes both ways. Perhaps some of the other employers will give preference to those who did sign the recall. Here's a thought, don't be so bitter and angry. Maybe one of those folks applying are a good worker. I'm sure telling your "bros" about how pulled the job out from under someone who signed the recall might give you some sense of superiority for a few minutes, but in the end, it sure isn't honorable. Be the bigger guy man and suck it up. Golden rule and all.
Dean Michaels
9:53 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
More vindictive sillyness from the party of NO, Baggers are falling fast out of existence.
its a privacy issue
9:41 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
The "fraudent and invalid" signatures u people speak of were already excluded when they were pre-verified when turned in. Think about it for a sec. Someone geta talking and someone who shouldnt have signed does. Or someone forgets to write in their address...or a right winger decides to write in mickey mouse so later they can come back and cry foul. All the signatures were preverivied. Many more than a million were actually turned in. But we legitimately got almost a million for walker. Keep trying assholes.
Craig
10:02 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
For someone who showed up late to the dinner table, you sure eat a lot of crap.
Pre-verified? Get your head out of the sand- or somewhere else.
When your first post includes incorrect information and degrading name calling, you lost your credibility before you even started.
That speaks volumes as to why there is so much division.
Steve
10:25 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
pre-verified lololololololol
ha, yeah right. Emotional recallers are going to pre-verified? God that made my morning.
Bewildered
10:27 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
" pre-verified" ? That's the funniest comment ever on Patch.
clark
12:05 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@Privacy---You sound very intelligent 'wif you're misspeld wurds'. Your use of curse words proves your (lack of) intelligence level. I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone that you can't write or convey your thoughts -even on a 3 grade level.
its a privacy issue
9:44 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Nice steve.... Thats perfect. Dont hire someone because they used their constitutional right. Thats just perfect. And then if these lists werent online youd be bitching about "transparency". You are everything wrong with america today.
Steve
10:31 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
My company, my rules. I would hate to pay someone that believes in an emotional recall to support public unions to continue to leech off our tax revenue.
I am the American dream
its a privacy issue
10:42 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
U mean..a CONSTITUTIONAL recall.... And since the constitutional right no longer seem to equate... Can i get your name and address so that i can sue you for "intent" to discriminate? Oh, and your address too please... So that i can put your information online and expose you for the hypocrite that you are. Thanks.
Steve
10:46 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Nope, emotional recall is what I typed. Didn't want your name to be public you shouldn't have signed a public piece of paper. Pretty simple.
Libs, always so sue happy. Always wanting to take it to the courts when they don't get their way. You're not a child anymore cut the temper tantrum we have adults in the capitol now.
Walker
10:47 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
And children on the computers acting like they belong to the team.
Craig
10:49 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Why would you want his name and address? It's not like you are going to apply for a job, you prefer to live off the hind Governmental teet.
Your true colors are really hard to hide at this point:
Unwarranted threats to sue?
Name calling and defamation
Uninformed and wrongly biased
I think that defines a hypocrite.
You're welcome!
Randy1949
11:37 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@Craig -- It's not like she is going to apply for a job? Why is it that your sort always assumes that anyone who is in favor of the recall is on some form of state assistance? I'm not. I pay taxes -- quite a lot of them -- and I don't care for the priorities of this administration.
My name and address are on the petition, and I don't care. If anything negative happens to me because of it, well, that says more about your side than mine.
Craig
12:05 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Randy'49....
I didn't know it was a she, but I didn't intend to imply that (s)he was on assistance. I mearly stated that (s)he was not likely to apply for a job working for Steve. Afterall, (s)he called him an a--hole- why would (s)he apply?
I know you are paying taxes like the rest of us. That in and of itself entitles you to your opinion, and your right to sign.
I also have rights, and so does Steve. When he makes the choice not to hire someone because thier beliefs are not conforming to how he wants to run his business, he can say just that. Because of a sue happy society, he can't say because your name was on the database.
I am sure that having your signature verified carries more clout than a signature that is not. Given the sheer number of signatures, I would want verification done if I was on your side- it would finally put this debate to rest.
Randy1949
12:37 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@Craig -- It's doubtful I'd be applying for a job at Steve's company either. I had the dubious pleasure of working for a man of his political persuasion, and I'm disinclined to subject myself to that ever again.
Interestingly, there was a time in the past twenty years when I found myself owing no state of federal income tax because some of our income was from self-employment and some of it was from savings held in mutual funds sold to make up the difference. The resulting income was not large enough to owe anything other than self-employment tax. Would that, in your estimation, have precluded me from voting or signing a petition?
Do I want my signature 'verified' by battalions of Tea Party volunteers looking for any excuse to challenge it? Not really. However, my surname is unique enough that I won't be flagged because my name matches many other 'James Schmidts' in the state.
As for the searchable database, I'm familiar enough with the limitations of OCRA to wonder how that could be accomplished from optical scans of handwritten documents. If the challengers want to do the manual data entry (and do it accurately) then knock yourselves out.
Craig
2:30 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Short answer Randy- your signature is valid.
its a privacy issue
11:09 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Jeezus... You guys swallow everything you are told, dont u? No need to think for yourselves at all that way. It must be alot easier. I have worked my whole life. Never took money off of anyones "teet" thanks. But of course. I would only be standing up to walker if i was a union thug or a welfare recipient. Right? So you dont want to give me your personal information so that i can publicly expose you for making such an ignorant, near fascist statement such as that.... But its perfectly ok for you asshats (gasp! Another name... If the shoe fits!) who claim to be all about upholding the constitution, stand there and say that you will use this database, which is the outcome of an expression of freedom and protected said constitutional
right for your own twisted idealigical fantasies . Just so that we are clear. The constitution is there for us all...not just when it benefits you. And yes. WE pre-verified signatures. No wonder your party gets eqauted to the nazis all time. I can say that with 100% confidence that any and all unverifiable signatures were. Not. Counted. But of course, Walker and Fox Noise neglected to tell u that, so of course it woulsnt be part of your repertoire, now would it? Incidentally enough... When walker was seates in milwaukee county, because they reclled tom ament in 2002... Was that just another discraceful, emotional waste of tax payer dollars too?
its a privacy issue
11:15 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Btw. I am copying your comments and putting them on all my "liberal" pages. It sure has sparked some intense conversations about how you both are such shining examples of how a right winger thinks a democracy works. Hows that feel? Of course it would be more fun if youd give us your real identities.
Craig
11:23 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Good for you. Copy and paste all you like. Try to re read them so maybe it sinks in. Or ask an educated adult to read them to you.
I would reiterate what I stated before, but I know I can't fix stupid.
Sorry- your on your own.
Steve
11:51 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
I win at the internet once again!
What's the site I would love to troll all you socialist leeches.
Don Niederfrank
11:23 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
fwiw, from the EEOC website--
Note: Many states and municipalities also have enacted protections against discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. For information, please contact the EEOC District Office nearest you.
Whether this is the case in WI and whether not hiring someone b/c they've signed a recall petition constitutes unlawful discrimination is an interesting question. I've made a few phone calls and left a message. I'll let y'all know if I hear anything. My guess is that this is something that would be settled in a court case.
Bob McBride
12:01 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
I think this would probably be one of the easier forms of discrimination to get away with, frankly. Unless an employer were to systematically go through his entire list of employees fire only those who had signed recall petitions in approximately the same time frame, you'd have a hard time proving it. I honestly don't think you'll see that happen. One would have to assume that a successful business person is going to shoot himself in the foot by letting go valuable employees simply because they signed a recall petition. I'd hazard a guess that most business people have a stronger sense of self interest than that.
As for hiring, same thing pretty much. You may have a few folks who for a brief moment in time consider it, but again, self-interest is going to get the best of them. People aren't hired daily just because the person doing the hiring doesn't like the way they look (grooming aside) or something similarly superficial (or not so superficial reasons such as age, race, etc) - it's hard enough to prove that, much less that it has something to do with a recall petition.
its a privacy issue
11:24 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Example. "The constitution is only there for me and my beliefs. When anyone else who opposes my myopic views uses the contitution, its treason against my country.". Thanks guys for proving that today. Loud. And. Clear.
its a privacy issue
11:25 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Thanks Don!
Don Niederfrank
11:47 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
yw. by way of full disclosure if it's not apparent--I'm moderately liberal (tho a number of my liberal friends would say otherwise!) and did sign a recall petition.
its a privacy issue
11:26 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Oh now craig. That would be akin to pot meeting kettle of u are calling me names now. Use your words. (said in my best mommy voice).
Craig
11:49 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
It would if it were unjustified, but not in this case.
Does your mommy lay your clothes out for you still?
its a privacy issue
11:59 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
oh. right.. atleast you are consistent in your hypocricy. Its ok for you... when its justified. But no one else, is ever justified. Right? Im getting it!
its a privacy issue
12:00 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
My mommy says that people only make personal insults when they've got nothing of substance to say. In which case, I believe this is an appropriate time to say... GOTCHYA!
Craig
12:08 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Look back at your first post, and ask your mommy for her opinion on what is appropriate.
Steve
12:14 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
►its a privacy issue
9:41 am on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Keep trying assholes.◄
Tosa720
12:14 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
People - time to move into the current century and decade - Programs should be put in place, and intelligent people should agree that it is ok to disagree without wielding insults. We no longer live in the era of the cave men.....
Randy1949
12:50 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@Marion Butters -- I agree. It should be possible to disagree without regressing to our middle-school years.
What I'd like to know is if the technology exists to scan handwritten documents directly into a searchable database. If not, the data entry will be expensive and time consuming. All to find massive fraud which some people hope exists.
Steve
12:54 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Been around for years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition
Randy1949
1:22 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@Steve -- From the Wikipedia article you linked to:
"Recognition of Latin-script, typewritten text is still not 100% accurate even where clear imaging is available. One study based on recognition of 19th- and early 20th-century newspaper pages concluded that character-by-character OCR accuracy for commercial OCR software varied from 71% to 98%;[2] total accuracy can be achieved only by human review. Other areas—including recognition of hand printing, cursive handwriting, and printed text in other scripts (especially those East Asian language characters which have many strokes for a single character)—are still the subject of active research."
The petitions are hand-printed and cursive, which are "still the subject of active research".
Steve
2:29 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
71-98% is better than 0
So you get 71% now you only have 29% of the signatures to manually enter. Maybe 290K lines.
Just stating the OCR has been out there for some time. Hell you go buy a scanner at best buy and the software usually includes OCR.
Bob Feller
1:37 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
RE: Elections Chief Says Searchable Database Expensive, Impractical ... That is simpy a load of crap? The technology exists AND, if they bought software for the scanning of the documents there was probably and addon or upgrade to the software that would have made the documents searchable. The GAB is doing just enough to comply with the "letter of the law" but not anywhere near "the spirit of the law". My question is to whom is the Government Accountability Board actually accountable? Seems like only themselves.
morninmist
2:00 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
The recalled politicians can pay for the searchable themselves. Simple as that (either party).
Randy1949
2:05 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@Bob Feller -- how does one turn a scanned image (the hand-printed petition sheets) into searchable and editable text in order to create a database?
Vicki Bennett
2:46 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Why does it have to be online? Verify the signatures and then, if someone wants a copy for verification purposes, just have them write in, state their purpose, and sign an affidavid that promises not to misuse the information. To me this is an intimidation tactic by the Walker administration to publish names to disuade folks from practicing their democratic right to voice their discontent. My fear is for those who may work for an employer who is a big Walker fan, and who uses it to intimidate or fire such employee. We've already had a few trolls on Patch who have voiced that they can't wait for the lists to be published so that they can take action. Our governor and his administration need to prove that they are worthy of our support. I haven't seen anything that would make me change my mind about his desire to dictate rather than democratically govern.
Craig
2:55 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Interpretation of the law would be best left to the AG, but I would argue that this is a public record document. Anyone for any reason may request a copy of any public record. Most public records are now put on the net. In this case I believe the data entry and publishing of said info will be done by a private entity.
Steve
2:50 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
WOW, very first page I look at at any of these petitions and same person signing two different names. First two lines Wow what a crock
http://webapps.wi.gov/sites/recall/Recall%20Petitions/Governor/GOV%2046751-46800.pdf
I'm sure they write exactly the same this couple lol
morninmist
3:06 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
You say the first two are the same? You are wrong. Get better glasses (or get some).
And curve your desire to find errors on every page--.
.............
Steve
2:50 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
WOW, very first page I look at at any of these petitions and same person signing two different names. First two lines Wow what a crock
http://webapps.wi.gov/sites/recall/Recall%20Petitions/Governor/GOV%2046751-46800.pdf
I'm sure they write exactly the same this couple lol
Steve
3:13 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Go to page one, these links won't start there
Page 4 and 5. Two Glen Hummers in the same house? Probably should have used JR. if one was a Son.
http://webapps.wi.gov/sites/recall/Recall%20Petitions/Governor/GOV%2046801-46850.pdf
morninmist
3:32 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Glen and Glenn
Note the difference?
........
Steve
3:13 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Go to page one, these links won't start there
Page 4 and 5. Two Glen Hummers in the same house? Probably should have used JR. if one was a Son.
http://webapps.wi.gov/sites/recall/Recall%20Petitions/Governor/GOV%2046801-46850.pdf
Don Niederfrank
2:53 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
fwiw, Wisconsin statute does not specifically prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation.
Steve
2:57 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
This is a joke
Page 12 same link wife/husband signing for each other
Page 13 same link Dianna signed for Dwane
wow, i'm only 13 pages in on one link, hey privacy thought these were per-varified?
Don Niederfrank
3:03 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Steve, about what % of the signatures you're perusing would you say are valid?
Steve
3:17 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Ask Privacy he said they are all pre-varified.
Thing is very few will get thrown out. All the reviewers can do is flag a line but after that nothing will happen. GAB makes their own rules.
morninmist
3:09 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Steve
You would flag these but even your own party would be embarrassed by your blunders.
Steve
3:22 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Exactly nothing will happen but when you start to look through these so much starts to pop out. I too can change my handwriting slightly. Conveniently 4 days later Marlene showed up to sign the same piece of paper right under Laura.
Sign your little piece of paper, Walker has the support of the rest of us.
morninmist
3:57 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Steve
This article is telling.
http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/comments/article/20120202/SPJ06/202020347/Letter-Eventually-Walker-will-get-everyone
Steve
4:16 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Telling of what? It's an opinion piece from someone mad that Walker cleaned up the public union. And you link goes to comments
Walker
4:24 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
try this link: http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/article/20120202/SPJ06/202020347/Letter-Eventually-Walker-will-get-everyone?odyssey=mod|mostview
Steve
4:34 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Yeah I made it there. Still don't see any point but glad you like it.
Walker
11:38 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
Didn't expect you to. Try removing your goggles.
Don Niederfrank
3:21 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Steve,
Slow down, take a closer look. D& D on page 13 don't even make the third letter of their names the same.
The first couple you reference differ in their e's and how they designate their apartment number. And you're "sure" they're the same??
Resemblance of signatures--and I'd even question how much they resemble each other--isn't enough. They have to be identical.
If you're vision is this biased, save your time. You're not looking clearly or carefully.
So you've gone through 13 pages and this is all you've found?
Steve
3:33 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Nope, not sure at all how would I know I wasn't there. Like I said nothing will happen change a little of this to look a little like that and bingo two lines done.
Ah my husband would want to sign this too let me make that happen.
You also can't prove that this didn't happen. Signing pieces of paper on the sidewalk is far from accurate. Good thing we have voter ID now :)
SkinnyDude
3:34 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Well if the GAB doesn't do the job they are charged with . We could save more money by closing it completely and contracting this out to private business who would have the ability of a searchable data base and eliminate lot of the fraud which clearly is associated with these signatures . I have no doubts that several 100,000s on the Walker recall are complete fraud. The recall is clearly flawed so a bipartisan agency would do a much better job of data entry to weed out fraud as well as Inadequate incomplete data which voids a signature. The GAB has showed a lack of integrity which deems them useless to the citizens of the ENTIRE state!
Steve
3:34 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Page 17
lol
Ronald must have come down with Parkinson’s disease after signing the first time.
http://webapps.wi.gov/sites/recall/Recall%20Petitions/Governor/GOV%2051351-51400.pdf
morninmist
4:11 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
That is a strange one. I wonder if that is how he legally signs his name?? I see the volunteer's initials is on the address line. Curious.
The original petition may have a notorized sheet attached that we do not know about.
Steve
8:46 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
More fraud, more cheating you guys really should all be thrown in jail
Walker
4:14 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
If you're going in looking for something to disqualify signatures for; you're, more likely than not, going to find something you can, in your mind, justify it. But that's not what they are there for. They are there to validate signatures.
Remember the phrase, “divine the intent of the voter,” from the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election? The effort was to try to find a way to make the vote count… not find a way to disqualify it. The one million that may ultimately be eight or nine hundred thousand. It appears both Governor Walker’s supporters and recall organizers agree on one thing. The number will be sufficient to force another election for governor.
Don Niederfrank
4:52 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Walker,
The rational tone of your note seems inappropriate to the tenor of this thread. You want to add a bit of craziness and/or ad hominem attack to make it fit in?
:-)
James R Hoffa
4:32 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
@morninmist -
How did the recall committee weed out duplicate signatures if they didn't create a searchable database of their own exactly?
After all, it's your side claiming that the signatures were meticulously vetted, right?
Steve
5:01 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Page 26
http://webapps.wi.gov/sites/recall/Recall%20Petitions/Governor/GOV%204551-4600.pdf
McDuffie
come on you've got to agree with me on this one, address written identically
Don Niederfrank
5:22 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
The "th" is different on the street address
The numbers of the first one are more rounded.
the "I" in WI differs.
The handwriting of the first one slants backward.
The signatures--which is what counts--differ greatly.
morninmist
5:44 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Don N is right in that it is the sig that matters.
Anyone---relative, friends, husband etc can fill in the columns except for the signature.
Steve
8:07 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
These are written in the air at weird angles on a clipboard not on a flat desk. When signing someone elses name of course it's not going to match exactly as yours because well it isn't your name.
Give me a break they grow old together and start writing the same together?!
The f, i, and e are identical and the penmanship is very feminine in appearance. I believe we will see Christine behind a jail cell soon on this one.
Steve
8:09 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
►The signatures--which is what counts--differ greatly.◄
oh well what the hell. That is the dumbest thing ever. So the page can have all the same penmanship and the only thing that needs to look different is a signature? I can sign anyone's name 100 different ways, hell looking through some of these people just make a circle or a wavy line.
What a waste, thank god for voter ID we can see the real results in a real election.
Johnny Paycheck
5:30 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Publicising a searchable database is just a way of intimidating people to not exercise their constitutional right to vote. How anyone chooses to vote has never been a publicised on-line. Nobody wants to have their business boycotted or get threatened or have their house egged just because somebody else disagrees with them. We can exercise a little bit more civility than that in the whole process...
Greg
10:37 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
The data base has nothing to do with voting.
Steve
8:29 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Page 14
http://webapps.wi.gov/sites/recall/Recall%20Petitions/Governor/GOV%205951-6000.pdf
"homeless"
what a joke
Walker
8:06 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
I'm sure he fails to find the humor in it. Nice of you to scoff at another person's misfortune.
Steve
8:44 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
You've got to be kidding me. You don't see the absolute fraud in this? You guys are the joke
Walker
9:00 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
Because "homeless" people can't sign petitions, right? Pathetic.
Steve
10:43 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
It's a completely non verifiable address. I can't walk into a polling place and say my name and my address is homeless.
I can make up any name, any city, any signature and write homeless for the address and have 100,000 signatures in a weekend on paper.
You support fraud of recall petitions is the only conclusion I make of this.
Walker
11:35 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
Butt then you always jump to your conclusions; inspite of the facts.
Steve
12:07 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
That fact is you live in a dream world that you can vote using the address "homeless"
Walker
12:13 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Didn't realize he was voting.
jack ryan
7:55 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
Maybe we could ask people from other states to give us millions of dollars to do this for us.
Maybe we could have a company out of state do this for us just like they are printing our new Driver Licenses out of state and mailing them to us.
jack ryan
7:56 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
I wish other articles could generate this much activity
SkinnyDude
3:50 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
The only thing i find Impractical is a (GAB) Government accountability board that is PRO FRAUD ! Its embarrassment to every honest citizen in the state!
morninmist
6:49 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Ah skinnyDUDE
Lookie here:
http://www.channel3000.com/politics/30373026/detail.html
Appeals Court Overturns Ruling That GAB Look For Erroneous Signatures
Petitions Turned In Last Month
UpMADISON, Wis. -- A state appeals court has overturned a ruling by a Waukesha County judge that requires the Government Accountability Board to search for fake or duplicate signatures among the recall petitions targeting Gov. Scott Walker and other Republican lawmakers.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals vacated an order that would require state election officials to be more aggressive in ferreting out fake or duplicate signatures on recall petitions.
The decision released Friday reverses a Waukesha County judge's decision and hands a victory to Democrats who wanted to intervene in a lawsuit related to recall signatures.Walker's campaign had sued the state Government Accountability Board, saying the GAB wasn't planning to be aggressive enough in tossing fraudulent signatures. Democratic recall committees wanted to intervene in the suit but were denied.The appeals court says the recall committees should have been allowed to participate.
Terry
9:56 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Important to note, it wasn't tossed on the merits of the case, but on a judicial ruling to exclude interested parties.
Best not to plant the victory flag on the hill, until its decided which way the hill slopes.