in Wisconsin, Kloppenburg concedes.

[Ellipsis]

Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg said Tuesday that she was conceding the Supreme Court race to Justice David Prosser, ending what had been a contentious campaign that culminated in a rare statewide recount.

Kloppenburg made the concession at a Madison news conference just over a week after the state's Government Accountability Board reported that final count numbers showed Prosser with 7,006 more votes.

Her decision to concede is expected to pave the way for Prosser to begin a new, 10-year term on Aug. 1.

If Kloppenburg had challenged the recount, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson would have had to name a reserve judge to hear Kloppenburg's court challenge. Court observers say it is likely that Abrahamson and the reserve judge would move as quickly as possible to consider the appeal.


http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/122872838.html

[Blue Owl]

1. Bravo to Kathy Nickolaus

Let's all congratulate her on the fine job she did stealing that election.

:sarcasm:

[Deep13]

2. +1

[robinlynne]

3. f...

[Bubba Kush]

4. Kloppenberg should have used her position to sue the hell out of Walker

Prosser, GAB, just about anyone to prevent Prosser from being sworn in again. The Waukesha County matter will never be resolved.

I would immediately convene a grand jury to indict the lot of those fuckers.

[disillusioned73]

5. Another one folds and allows corruption to win...

sad.

[roody]

9. A person has a limited amount of energy.

[PeaceNikki]

10. You should read the actual statement.

http://wispolitics.com/1006/110531_Prepared_remarks.pdf

Snip:

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. That is not the kind of lawyer I am.

Emphasis mine because it's exactly what I have been saying (and called names on DU for) for weeks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. it's an excellent statement all around

This recount should serve as a wake-up call to improve Wisconsin’s election processes.

I'm not going to quote any more of it. People should actually read it. That sentence isn't a throwaway: it's the main point of her statement.

It will be interesting to see who is actually interested in helping to improve Wisconsin's election processes, and who seems content to gratuitously trash Kloppenburg for not filing a probably futile lawsuit.

[pacalo]

13. As I recall, your response has been basically "where's the evidence" & " if there's fraud

they'll find it". I must have missed your statements that mirror Kloppenburg's statement of today.

In fact, I was taken aback on your response to one of my posts on the day we found out about Kathy Nickolaus' revelations. You were quite angry at the mention of election fraud.

Those who have been calling election fraud got it right. Prosser & his former staffer got away with it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. now "where's the evidence" seems to apply twice

In fact, I was taken aback on your response to one of my posts on the day we found out about Kathy Nickolaus' revelations. You were quite angry at the mention of election fraud.

Are you referring to the post where you said,

When an election that should have been a slam dunk against Walker's obdurate mentality has been won by a Democratic candidate one day & the next day a magical revelation appears -- that 7,000 votes have been conveniently "found" by a Republican county clerk whose modem is conveniently not hooked into the state system -- there's something fishy going on.

and PeaceNikki's response began, "Bull. Shit."? Because, frankly, she had a point. I bet a lot of Wisconsin Democrats who worked on Kloppenburg's campaign would be unamused to hear that they should have had a "slam dunk" win. And people who understand Wisconsin's election system understand the problem with asserting that Nickolaus "conveniently 'found'" votes: the various municipalities had already committed to their vote totals. So, what I'm wondering is: was PeaceNikki really "quite angry at the mention of election fraud," or was she angry about factually challenged allegations of election fraud?

Those who have been calling election fraud got it right. Prosser & his former staffer got away with it.

How do you know? If you're going to make claims like this without supporting them, why shouldn't people be annoyed?

[shireen]

6. sad to hear that

i remember the excitement her initial win generated here at DU. And then those mystery votes appeared ... :(

[Lint Head]

7. This is a travesty that will repeat itself until something is done. If ever.

Apparently the highly educated university law whizzes in this country have never learned the lesson or the definition of unlawful criminality. They learn the law so they can circumvent it and get their political cronies placed into office illegally. Business law teaches a person how to help their corporate clients screw over people without getting caught.

It's a wonderful system we have going here.

[juajen]

8. She was threatened, or something? It always happens.

I'm not surprised, but I was hopeful.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Poor judgment

wins again. Who says that Bush v Gore didn't set a precedent?

[readmoreoften]

15. This is why telling WI protestors to "back off" and pin their hopes on electing Dems is destructive

to the labor movement. This fascination with politicians has got to end and something new has to begin.

[deminks]

16. Was she sacrificed for the recall movement? Not enough energy for both?

Her recount brought out much more that open bags, although the open bags were bad enough and numerous enough. Kathy N. still has her special software, that the GAB evidently wrote for her. So now, Fitzwalkerstan voters are supposed to pin their hopes on VOTING for recalls, or VOTING for democratic candidates. Good luck with that, and gawd help us all.