Milwaukee Runs Out of Ballots and Forms With Voters Waiting In Line

The polls closed over an hour ago in the recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and Twitter is a frenzy with people still waiting to vote in Milwaukee and Madison. The Journal Sentinel is reporting that some polling precincts have run out and are running out of ballots and forms while people are still waiting in line to vote.

Reporters called the race with about 20% reporting, and some in line left without voting. The Government Accountability Board has confirmed it, "We hear some news media in the Milwaukee area have been interviewing voters who are still waiting in line to vote at some polling places." This could amount to election tampering, and we all know about the far-right corporate media in Wisconsin. GAB director Kevin Kennedy called it "illegal and totally inappropriate."

If you're waiting in line to vote, DON'T LEAVE. This election could turn!

Barrett is not conceding while people are still voting.

The Definition of a Super PAC

Super PAC: a frothy mix of lube and campaign funding that is sometimes the byproduct of politics.

You hear the term thrown around a lot, Super PAC or SuperPAC. But many people ask what is a Super PAC? A great visionary in Super PAC development, Stephen Colbert, provided this simple definition. He gave us this definition during his television program, The Colbert Report, on Thursday. A Super PAC is a frothy mix of lube and campaign funding that is sometimes the byproduct of politics.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

If you want to help change this, support the DISCLOSE Act.

In case you're interested, here's the real definition on Wikipedia.

WI Attorney General Van Hollen Declines Work - Deserves An Investigation

Apparently J.B. Van Hollen is too busy for real AG work, because he's declined to investigate potential election fraud in Waukesha County and former Walker aides who may have violated law. Van Hollen declined to help the FBI with their secret Walker investigation after they requested his assistance. The FBI doesn't waste time, there's definitely a fishy smell emanating from the Walker camp. Yet, Van Hollen spent years investigating voter fraud when no rational mind suspects an issue of any real significance, and the results were what we expected, no significant voter fraud.

Tens of thousands of Wisconsinites and several high-profile people asked Van Hollen to investigate the glaring election issues in Waukesha County after the Supreme Court election in which David Prosser won by a very small margin, where significant election fraud may have occurred. However, J.B. Van Hollen declined to make any effort to investigate. Instead, the Government Accountability Board appointed a special investigator, Timothy Verhoff. Verhoff has now completed his investigation, only a few months later. Was the office of J.B. Van Hollen really so busy that they couldn't investigate?

Now, the FBI has asked J.B. Van Hollen to assist in their previously secret investigation of former Walker aides. What could possibly make Van Hollen believe the FBI is wrong in investigating these aides? If the FBI is wrong, shouldn't Van Hollen assist the FBI in coming to that conclusion?

Putting this all together what picture do we paint? Van Hollen has a very selective bias when it comes to what he chooses to investigate, but a very simple threshold. Will the investigation help Republicans? Yes, then investigate. No, then keep as quiet as possible. The investigations into voter fraud created a buzz around the words "voter fraud," most likely enabling the passage of the Voter Suppression Bill, which helps Republicans win more elections by suppressing votes for Democrats. Investigating election fraud in Waukesha County during the Supreme Court election could have resulted in a win for Kloppenburg, hurting Republicans, but keeping quiet left the status quo. Assisting the investigation of former Walker aides could potentially bring light to areas the FBI is dark on, potentially incriminating more aides and Walker himself. That would for sure hurt the Republicans, but keeping quiet can only help.

I'm sorry Mr. Van Hollen, but the people of Wisconsin, your employer, want you to do your job! You don't get a big fat paycheck to investigate only the things you're interested in. J.B. Van Hollen, you are a disgrace to your position and the State of Wisconsin. I think it's time for an investigation of J.B. Van Hollen's office, if there isn't already an ongoing secret FBI investigation. Tell Wisconsin why you won't investigate these very serious allegations when you'll investigate frivolous claims for years.

Want more reason to suspect politicizing by Van Hollen, check this out:

Two Successful Recalls of Republicans - Dems Won't Pursue Questions of Irregularities

Earlier, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Mike Tate said Waukesha County Kathy Nicholaus was sitting on and tampering with votes. Waukesha County had told reporters that they would withhold their results until tomorrow without reason. However, within an hour after the announcement by Tate, Waukesha County has now fully reported, and the AP has called the race for Albert Darling. The Wisconsin Democrats have since issued another statement.

"On Tuesday night, Wisconsin spoke loud and clear with the recall of two entrenched Republicans. This is an accomplishment of historic proportions that I do not wish to be overshadowed by statements regarding results in the 8th Senate District.

Though we believe that Sandy Pasch was able to battle Alberta Darling to a virtual tie, on her turf, we will not pursue questions of irregularities. Those heat-of-the-moment statements came in light of the uncertainties that arose from a recent election, known too well.
The fact of the matter remains, that, fighting on Republican turf, we have begun the work of stopping the Scott Walker agenda."

If there are issues with our elections, they should be investigated whether the results change the election or not, and I believe the Wisconsin Democrats should pursue any questions, not to try to change the election, but to ensure our elections are truly fair and secure. If there are no longer any questions, the Democrats should be clear. The Wisconsin Wave is calling for people to be ready to mobilize Wednesday for possible issues in Waukesha County.

Following are the latest results:

2nd Senate District

Robert Cowles, R - 60% (winner)

Nancy Nusbaum, D - 40%

100% reporting

8th Senate District

Alberta Darling, R - 54% (winner)

Sandy Pasch, D - 46%

99% reporting

10th Senate District

Sheila Harsdorf, R - 58% (winner)

Shelly Moore, D - 42%

100% reporting

14th Senate District

Luther Olsen, R - 52% (winner)

Fred Clark, D - 48%

100% reporting

18th Senate District

Jessica King, D - 51% (winner)

Randy Hopper, R - 49%

100% reporting

32nd Senate District

Jennifer Shilling, D - 55% (winner)

Dan Kapanke, R - 45%

100% reporting

Democrat winners will take their seat immediately, removing Senators Randy Hopper and Dan Kapanke. The next battle is to recall Scott Walker so that we can begin restoring and improving Wisconsin.

Recall Elections: Waukesha County Tampering

Following is the statement of Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate following evidence of election tampering in the 8th State Senate District race.

"The race to determine control of the Wisconsin Senate has fallen in the hands of the Waukesha County clerk, who has already distinguished herself as incompetent, if not worse. She is once more tampering with the results of a consequential election and in the next hours we will determine our next course of action. For now, Wisconsin should know that a dark cloud hangs over these important results."

As reported earlier, Waukesha County is delaying the reporting of their vote counts until tomorrow for no given reason. 100% of all of the other 5 districts have reported their results. You may remember Waukesha County and Kathy Nicholaus who just happened to lose and then later find enough votes to give the election to the Republican-backed David Prosser in the April Wisconsin Supreme Court race. State Senator Jon Erpenbach told Rachel Maddow on MSNBC tonight that "Waukesha County should have been one of the first counties reporting."

A video of Democratic Party of Wisconsin Spokesman Graeme Zielinski accusing Kathy Nicholaus of tampering with the election has been posted to YouTube.

"This contest has been tampered with by Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nicholaus. We believe that we were up. The Associated Press had us up. She is sitting on votes. We believe right now there are severe irregularities in Waukesha County. Once again, we believe that the very fate of the Wisconsin Senate right now hangs in the balance and is in the hands of a woman who has already shown extreme incompetence and maybe more. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin believes that Kathy Nicholaus is tampering with this election. She is sitting on votes. Our models, our returns, our results show us ahead in this election, this important election, the election that will determine control of the Wisconsin Senate, and we believe that Kathy Nicholaus, a Waukesha Republican and former staffer to Assembly Republicans, who has shown gross incompetence and maybe more in the Supreme Court election is at it again. We believe there are dirty tricks at foot. We believe an investigation is needed, or at least a very good explanation for what looks like she's doing to this election. We'll wait and we'll see what transpires the rest of the night. We might not have any more statements right now. Of course our legal team is exploring all of our legal options right now. We're getting as best information as we can, but right now I can say that it's our belief that the election that will determine control of the Senate is being tampered with."

Update: (12:51pm) Waukesha County has now fully reported, shortly after telling the press they wouldn't fully report results tonight, and the AP has called the race for Alberta "Walker's" Darling. The events late this evening are quite mysterious, but from the Dems latest statement, they won't be pursing an investigation. The Wisconsin Wave is calling for people to be ready to mobilize Wednesday for possible issues in Waukesha County.

Recall Elections: Waukesha County Suspiciously Withholding Election Results

Ed Schultz on MSNBC is reporting that Waukesha County has told reporters that they are withholding their election results until tomorrow. Waukesha County is part of the heated district race between Sandy Pasch and Alberta Darling. John Nichols told Ed that there is no reason for such a delay and that Waukesha County should be able to report as quickly as everyone else.

You may remember Waukesha County and Kathy Nicholaus who just happened to lose and then later find enough votes to give the election to the Republican-backed David Prosser in the April Wisconsin Supreme Court race. This BS was supposed to be resolved after that election, but apparently Wisconsin and the GAB are happy to have a flaky and untrustworthy County Clerk in Kathy Nicholaus. State Senator Jon Erpenbach told Rachel Maddow tonight that "Waukesha County should have been one of the first counties reporting" and is now an issue.

Ed said that several sources have told him this may lead to an investigation to protect the integrity of our elections, and I hope it does. Ed also reported that Democrat Chair Mike Tate has issued a statement saying that Kathy Nicholaus "is tampering with our elections," and they will plan their response in the next hour.

Updated: (11:23pm) Ed Schultz reported that Waukesha County is now telling reporters they won't provide results until some time tomorrow. The delay was originally reported to be one hour. More info here.

Proper Investigation Required in Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

Regardless of who wins, we can't believe most of the vote counts provided to the GAB for the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, because there are so many unresolved and unexplained issues. There's no certainty in any of the counts from vote counting machines, because we know they rarely count votes correctly and are easily manipulated. Once one begins to also consider the issues with insecure ballot bags, one realizes just how unclear the results of the recount are.

The Kloppenburg campaign has the burden of showing that something improper occurred, but with very little information, and officials refusing to provide further information*, that will be very difficult to show. Unfortunately, there isn't much proof that something improper didn't occur. So, unless a thorough investigation is conducted, we won't know what to believe.

I wrote more on this here, including how Minnesota properly conducted a statewide recount in 2008.

However, I want to be sure this point is heard loud and clear: Unless we get more clarity, there's no reason to believe the results of this election and its recount.

If the recount ends (May 26th) without the start of a proper investigation, I will rightly denounce the validity of the winner's victory every chance I can. I vow to do this whether the winner is Prosser or Kloppenburg, because I just want to know the truth, and I will have no qualms congratulating the winner once the true winner is determined.

*This has gotten so bad that it's really starting to beg the questions: Why aren't we getting clarity from the officials responsible for doing so? What possible motives could someone have for withholding such information?

Alarming Lack of Clarity in Wisconsin Supreme Court Election Recount

I hammered away for days if not weeks after the election, demanding a recount, so that we could have some confidence in the election results. Given the issues with our computer election equipment, which were brought to light by the fiasco in Waukesha County, there's not a single person who can say all of the vote counts throughout Wisconsin are correct. The only counts we can say are correct are those that were hand counted, but that occurred in only parts of 31 of our 72 counties (and a few that don't have machines). Even then, with unresolved ballot bag issues, there may be reason to suspect some hand recounts.

So many questions have gone unanswered (which causes more questions given this is all supposed to be transparent) from why election software can lose votes to why ballot bags are left so insecurely. Some issues get explained, but such issues never seem to be the ones we're concerned about. I don't understand why the people who are supposed to be explaining these things to us continue to refuse to do so. There's no reason they can't quickly address the issues to increase our confidence, especially given all of the suspicions. This recount isn't giving us any confirmation that the election was open, fair and clean, but that's what recounts are supposed to be for.

In 2008, the nation witnessed how a recount is properly conducted. The Minnesota recount in Senator Al Franken's election was entirely a hand recount and issues were resolved out in the open. In fact, the recount was broadly reported on, and they even posted all disputed ballots online for all to see. No one could say at the end of that recount that Franken didn't win.

Unfortunately, we won't have the same confidence in this recount. What's worse, whoever wins sits for ten years. With so much at stake, and so many questions, why the heck aren't we properly and transparently conducting this recount for all to see?

I'm grateful that Waukesha County is live streaming their recount, but I don't understand why this wasn't setup for every county. There's little time and expense in setting up such a live stream, but it provides a large increase in transparency and confidence in our elections. For example, the public knows about most of the ballot bag issues simply because one concerned Wisconsinite has been watching the live stream quite intently. How many other counties had issues with ballot bags that we don't know about because those counties' recounts weren't streamed online? It's a shame that we use computers to count votes, but still live in the dark ages when it comes to recounts.

Sure the issues with ballot bags are great for news stories and conspiracy theories, and there really may be lost or improper votes from those bags, but the real problems lie with the fact that our vote counting machines could very well be counting our votes incorrectly. It doesn't take a conspiracy for thousands of votes somewhere in Wisconsin to have been incorrectly counted. This issue hasn't been addressed or resolved.

By the way, the new tally from the recount brings more suspicion by itself. I bring this up again because we have so little information to work with. Since we presume Prosser has more votes than Kloppenburg, he should also have a majority of new votes from the recount. However, so far, Kloppenburg is leading the new votes by quite a large margin (548-296). It's not proof of issues with the vote count, but it can be a red flag. Unless this wide margin doesn't hold or is explained, it's additional cause for concern that the vote counts somewhere are incorrect.

I'm going to say this completely factual statement now in the hopes that we get some more clarity. Unless we get more clarity, there's no reason to believe the results of this election and its recount.

If the recount ends (May 26th) without the start of a proper investigation, I will rightly denounce the validity of the winner's victory every chance I can.

What Can the Recount Tally Changes Tell Us?

There's one critical piece of information that I'm paying careful attention to in the recount for the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, the updated vote tallies. The changes to the election results from the recount are not only important because they tell us who presumably is the winner, but they *should* also confirm the winner.

There appears to be at least 8 issues with the chain of custody of ballots in Waukesha County such as torn ballot bags and missing seals/labels. So there's definitely ways in which those ballots could have been modified. Of course, the media reported the issues with the ballot bags in the first few days of the recount, but there's been no mention of the more recent issues or how any of the issues were resolved. The GAB also hasn't explained the resolution of these ballot bag issues or even acknowledged many others. This is very concerning, because the whole idea behind the recount was to get to the bottom of issues, not to continue hiding them.

So, how can we tell if there are unresolved issues with the election results? Theoretically, and with a large enough amount of votes, the distribution of changes in results should match the final distribution of results. That is, if Prosser has a majority of the overall votes, he should also receive the majority of newly-counted votes. So if, say, Prosser retains the lead in the overall results when the recount is complete, but Kloppenburg received a majority of the newly-counted votes, then there is reasonable concern to doubt the vote tallies from one or more precincts.

This is particularly true if there is an unexplained wide gap between the two distributions and is a result of the mathematics of probability. If Prosser has a majority of the overall results when the recount is complete, but didn't receive a majority of the newly-counted votes, we could have a problem. It wouldn't be proof that an unresolved issue exists, but it would be a bright red flag.

So where do things stand now? Well, Kloppenburg is leading 437 to 140 in the newly-counted votes. That's 50% of the newly-counted votes going to Kloppenburg which is also 75% of the newly-counted votes cast between Kloppenburg and Prosser. If the recount were complete, these numbers would be cause for concern. However, I must stress that the latest numbers from the GAB are unofficial, and we can't make any judgements until almost all counties complete the recount (if we can at all before the full recount is complete). Also, this technique won't always uncover issues and it may imply issues when none exist, so we must carefully make judgements when using it.

Still, since we're getting very little information from the GAB and the news media, I thought I'd share this bit of helpful information now rather than later. If the distribution of results continue the way they are currently, we're going to want a strong argument for further investigation.