April 12, 2015 by Barbara With

In last Tuesday’s election, Wisconsin citizens voted on a referendum to redefine the terms by which the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court will be determined. For 126 years, the justice appointed to the position has been the court’s longest-serving judge. A “yes” for the referendum meant a voter supported changing the process of determination to a majority vote of the judges on the court.

The referendum passed with a vote of 53% yes, 47% no. Current Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, a liberal, stands to lose her position. However, liberal incumbent Ann Walsh Bradley won 58% of the votes to retain her position on the court, while conservative Circuit Court Judge James P. Daley received 42%.

The question arises, how could the liberal candidate Walsh Bradley win the election, but the referendum against liberal Chief Justice Abrahamson pass?

Since Scott Walker became governor, there is ample evidence that Wisconsin has been beset with election fraud. As a result, extreme right-wing Republicans now control every entity in state government: senate, assembly, governor’s office, highway patrol and the Supreme Court.

In the case of the recent election, an ad campaign in favor of the referendum was funded by $600,000 from the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) and misled voters with the message Vote Yes for Democracy. The real impetus behind the referendum was likely the impending John Doe case, which is on its way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. WMC’s spending during the 2012 recall elections is a key issue in the case. Daley is also a defendant.

In an unprecedented move made last month by the court, the hearing of the John Doe case will be held in secret. Not surprising, however, since the majority of the court is bankrolled by WMC. Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson dissented, saying, “The court’s failure to provide further justification for its highly unusual decision to cancel oral argument is, in my view, alarming [and] may, unfortunately, signify the court’s intention to dispose of the John Doe cases as a whole in a similarly swift and secretive manner. I cannot join the court in concealing this important litigation from public view.”

The result of the referendum vote now tightens Republican control of the judicial branch. This is not the first time the court has been poised to take on legal issues involving Republican Walker where circumstantial evidence pointed to fraud.

On March 18, 2011, Dane County Judge Maryanne Sumi placed a restraining order on the new union-busting Act 10 law which was passed contentiously in the middle of the night. The April 2011 Supreme Court election between incumbent conservative Republican David Prosser and liberal Joanne Kloppenberg would determine who held the majority on the bench—liberals or conservatives. If Prosser was not elected to the bench when the Act 10 case arrived at the Supreme Court, the Republicans very likely would be held accountable for violating the open meetings law.

The election ended with the mysterious discovery of 14,000 ballots two days after Kloppenberg won the election, swinging the win to Prosser. The extra votes led to a state-wide recount, where evidence of election fraud discovered by volunteers was not reported to the Government Accountability Board before they determined Prosser as the winner.

Judge Sumi indeed found Republicans guilty on May 26. As it turned out, Prosser’s “win” allowed the conservative majority on the Supreme Court to overrule Sumi’s decision, proclaim that the Wisconsin Republicans were not subject to the law of the land and allow Walker and his corporate sponsors to “legally” move forward in their takeover of the state.

Definition of Election Fraud

There is undeniable circumstantial evidence that Wisconsin is the target of election fraud. Like fingerprints at the scene of a crime, one must examine the multiple pieces of evidence of the attack on elections that has been perpetrated by the now-Republican majority.

Election fraud is not just corrupt election officials “finding” 14,000 votes two days after an election;

It’s not just voting machines that can be rigged with no discernible trace and proven by Princeton University to be hackable, and controlled by a shady organization operating out of a strip mall in Minnesota;