READER COMMENTS ON

"Exclusive: My Live KPFK Interview with now-former WI Supreme Court Candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg"

(15 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 6/2/2011 @ 6:42 am PT...



COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Louis Lemire said on 6/2/2011 @ 7:47 am PT...



Good people of WI, time to crawl back into your underground dens. IMO, and its just my opinion, you are cowards, all of you.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... molly said on 6/2/2011 @ 8:44 am PT...



Thank you Brad for your courage. Great voice for the media, by the way.We need international monitors at this point for all future elections. The criminality in our elections are systemic now.

Guess that was meant to send a message. Assistant AG Kloppenburg seems to have gotten it. Guess she trusts the justice system to do the right thing more than we do since she is in the business.

Wonder if the infusion of money at the last of the campaign covered bribes. It takes a village to steal an election as we saw in Kentucky. We also saw that the only politician who cried foul of our US elections, Don Seigleman, was made a political prisoner. And still has not had his name cleared.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... molly said on 6/2/2011 @ 8:46 am PT...



All in all, there is plenty of evidence for a lawsuit if we had a justice dept.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Alex said on 6/2/2011 @ 9:50 am PT...



As a resident of Wisconsin I would like to know what I can do to help guide our officials to make sure the custody of ballots is secure. Regardless of outcome, the fact that the bags were open, duct taped, given different serial numbers makes the election results suspect. How can I make sure my local and county clerk is doing their job properly? How can I regain confidence in the integrity of future elections? The computers can only be verified if the ballots can be recounted. If the ballots are not secure than any recount is a valid as the computer tapes.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Jon5 said on 6/2/2011 @ 10:27 am PT...



Questions to have been asked by Brad. Why does wisconsin bother to write statutes meant to protect the integrity of the chain of custody if violating them means nothing? Does violation of state statutes constitute a crime? If so and crimes were committed during the recount why is Kloppenburg willing to sweep them under the rug with the GAB? Has she considered the cynical attitude her actions will spread among people working for change thru the political system? How can she consider an election that contained likely voter fraud an expression of the will of the people? Sorry Brad I know you are a kind person but i think you let her off way to easy!

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Jon5 said on 6/2/2011 @ 12:16 pm PT...



Oh and one more question for Kloppenburg. Since this was a CRUCIAL election and a very close one. And since she stated Wisconsin recount statutes need the candidate to raise objections why did she not make the 50 mile drive to Waukesha to observe the recount HERSELF?

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 6/2/2011 @ 2:54 pm PT...



Jon5 said @ 6 & 7:

Sorry Brad I know you are a kind person but i think you let her off way to easy!

Not in my defense, but by way of explanation, there is always a fine line when dealing with public officials (or any guests) who, frankly, don't have to give you their time, especially to answer a half hour of questions live on the air. For that, they are owed some thanks and respect, even as I still feel it is my job to ask tough, but fair, questions anway. Sometimes I walk the line well, other times not. I'll leave it to you and others to decide how I walked it this time. (I've got my own opinions about that, but it does not particularly matter.)

With that said, the questions you would have liked me to ask are all good ones, and none of them were avoided for any reason other than for lack of time on the short show. (As you may know, I generally prefer a longer format for such interviews, but don't have any choice about that in my weekly half-hour KPFK slot.)

Kloppenburg told me, at an earlier date, that she does not tend to read blogs. Though if she happens to read this one, and your comments here, I hope she'll feel welcome to answer the questions you raised herself, as other officials sometimes do in our comments section.

Short of that though, allow me a stab at a few of them, based on what I suspect may have informed some of her thinking, as gleaned through my discussions with her, her campaign, and the hard facts that I'm aware of...

Why does wisconsin bother to write statutes meant to protect the integrity of the chain of custody if violating them means nothing?

I think her letter to the GAB [PDF], calling for improvements in their enforcement of those violations, speaks, somewhat, to her concern about that. I got the sense, through the my conversations with her camp over the past month, that they were none too happy with the way the statutes were (or, more aptly, weren't) being enforced. And then, as we discussed during the interview above, there is some frustration that enforcement is, ultimatly, left to a candidate to either afford or not via legal challenge.

I suspect they share the frustration inherent in your question.

Does violation of state statutes constitute a crime?

As an Asst. AG, I'd guess that her answer would be "yes, of course!" However, short of hard evidence that statutes were purposely violated (versus, say, a ballot bag that came open during handling, innocently enough), it may be difficult to say whether statutes were violated or not for certain.

Making things murkier still, WI case law has determined that much of the election related statutes are "directory" versus "mandatory". In other words, counties are directed to seal their ballots in bags, but if they fail to, they have not necessarily violated a mandatory requirement.

That's a vaguish description from an admitted non-attorney, with a only a bare minimum knowledge of the full body of election-related case law in WI, but I offer it in case it adds additional light to your questions (and, again, not by way of either apologizing for or speaking for her...just sharing some of what I have learned about what may have gone into their thinking as to whether to file for a judicial review or not.)

An actual challenge via judicial review, obviously, would have allowed for much more discovery, under-oath testimony, etc. to get to the bottom of what really did or didn't happen, but that is expensive, as discussed during the interview.

But here's how she spoke herself to your question, a bit, in her concession speech [PDF]:

Wis. Stat. §5.01(1) provides that the state election laws “shall be construed so as to give effect to the will of the electors, if that can be ascertained, notwithstanding informality or failure to comply with some of its provisions.” It is questionable whether even the statewide extent of noncompliance uncovered by this recount would cross the bar raised by this statutory language. Moreover, Wisconsin courts have held that absent connivance, fraud or undue influence, substantial compliance with the statutory voting procedures is sufficient. Which brings me to Waukesha and the question of whether-- or if --- there was manipulation of some ballots, given the fact that so many bags were unsealed to the point of being wide open. Here again, evidence of opportunity to manipulate or alter ballots is not enough. There would have to be compelling proof that the integrity of the ballots has been compromised. The numerous glaring anomalies in Waukesha certainly warrant further, independent investigation. However, the defects or irregularities in the sealing and securing of the ballot bags, as documented in the recount minutes, would not be sufficient to meet the threshold set by law. As an attorney, as an officer of the court and as someone who understands both the power and the limits of the law, it is my obligation to evaluate and recognize the legal grounds on which I can and cannot act. I have reviewed the record, the evidence and the law. It would serve no purpose to bring a suit with insufficient legal basis.

Back to your questions...

If so and crimes were committed during the recount why is Kloppenburg willing to sweep them under the rug with the GAB?

I'll not answer that at all, other than I don't believe that she believes she is helping to "sweep [crimes] under a rug". (Your opinion, of course, is welcome to vary as you see fit.)

Has she considered the cynical attitude her actions will spread among people working for change thru the political system?

I can't answer that one at all.

How can she consider an election that contained likely voter fraud an expression of the will of the people?

I can't answer that one either, but am jumping in to say that there is no evidence of "voter fraud", as you suggest, but rather election fraud. And, in her concession speech, she went out of her way to note that point by saying: "there is scant evidence of individuals trying to vote fraudulently."

As to how she considers the results to be "an expression of the will of the people", she can answer if she wishes. I did try to push her on that point as much as I could given the various constraints mentioned at the top of this comment.

Oh and one more question for Kloppenburg. Since this was a CRUCIAL election and a very close one. And since she stated Wisconsin recount statutes need the candidate to raise objections why did she not make the 50 mile drive to Waukesha to observe the recount HERSELF?

I believe she is refering to candidates raising objections by filing for a judicial review after the "recount" is certified, not the candidate, herself, being on hand at the count to object. To that end, she did have have an attorney present throughout the counting in Waukesha, everyday, to the best of my understanding, and he did file objections for the record in the recorded minutes (for whatever that was worth.)

And, again, I would certainly welcome her own thoughts to any or all of above, if she wishes to post them here, but hopefully I've added a bit of light, anyway, based on my last month or two of reporting on this story.