Judge denies request for hand recount of Wisconsin's presidential election results

[riversedge]

Source: Madison.com




STATE RECOUNT | stein campaign submits $3.5M payment


MARK SOMMERHAUSER and MATTHEW DeFOUR Wisconsin State Journal 6 hrs ago 86

A Dane County judge on Tuesday denied a request by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton to require all votes in Wisconsin’s presidential election to be recounted by hand, as officials in each of the state’s 72 counties ready for the recount to begin Thursday.


....................................................................................

Clinton’s legal team largely stayed on the sidelines in the recount until Tuesday, when her campaign joined Stein’s court request for a hand recount.

Clinton’s attorney, Josh Kaul, wrote in a memo to the court that a hand recount is “preferable to a machine recount because human beings can assess voter intent in a way that machines cannot.”

Fifty-six counties have told the commission or the Wisconsin State Journal that they plan to do full or partial hand recounts. Other counties plan to use scanning machines to re-tabulate the votes............................................

Read more: host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/judge-denies-request-for-hand-recount-of-wisconsin-s-presidential/article_527e4a4b-4840-579b-a56c-10ab0c4a334f.html

---

It makes no sense at all to put the ballots through the SAME machines.

Needs a real audit-not just a recount.

[tavernier]

1. And there it is there.

Appears the fat lady has sung.

[Bad Dog]

2. They're using the same tactics they used in Florida in 2000.

Using the courts to shut down the democratic process.

[forthemiddle]

5. I have to disagree with this

It is not "them" trying to use the court to shut down the democratic process.
It is the law. It is the Stein campaign that is using the courts to shut down the written law.

The Wisconsin recount law clearly states that the use of machines vs hand counts is up to each individual county clerk. Jill Stein tried to get a Judge to change the law based on "hacking" the problem was that she had no proof, she had speculation.
So what she wanted is the Judge (a Dane County Judge) to rewrite the law based on speculation.
That is not the job of the judicial branch, nor should it ever be.

The right way to change a law (a very clearly written law) is to go through the legislative branch.

And as an aside, the Judge pushed the clerks to to hand counts, she just couldn't order them to do so. Out of 72 counties, only 19 have said they are using the machines, so it will almost be a statewide hand count.

[tavernier]

6. Thank you

for your explanation. This is good to know. Obviously no one in the media feels that this count is necessary or legitimate, so we receive no information from them.

[forthemiddle]

8. I live in here

So I have been keeping a very close eye on it.
I plan to call my county clerks office this morning to find out if they are doing the hand count or not.
That is how I think all constiguients in Wisconsin should handle this, call your clerks.

[Farmgirl1961]

31. Let us know what you find out.

[forthemiddle]

32. According to my County Clerk

My county will by hand counted.

This is a county that flipped from Obama to Trump this year, so if something fishy happened it may have happened in my county.
I will update if anything turns up.

[anamandujano]

34. I'm betting any counties that do count by hand will find evidence of padding or other for Trump.

That might be enough to appeal this judge & get a hand count everywhere.

We all know they have already found padding in a few counties.
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/11/25/breaking-wisconsin-audit-shows-stunning-irregularity-more-votes-counted-than-ballots-cast/

It's not a difficult guess that there was mischief in other counties.

[brooklynite]

38. ...and I'm betting they don't

Because there's been no evidence of hacking the result. "I didn't like the outcome" is not evidence.

[anamandujano]

42. They found padding, not hacking. Trump had to return 5K votes. The innocent "mistakes"

were all in Trump's favor, while the count for Hillary stayed the same.

That is what I'm betting on. If they are allowed to examine the machines, they might find evidence of mischief there.

[forthemiddle]

40. I am not trying to constantly debunk info today

But that article you linked is very misleading.

The miscounts of those three counties were election night miscalculations only. They were all caught the morning after the election when they were canvassing the votes. Nothing nefarious happened.
Every election night there are tally errors. This stems from the fact that everybody wants results now. Election workers are exhausted after the long day, and mistakes will be made. In these cases the mistakes were caught almost immediately and NEVER officially reported.

Here is the Snopes article explaining it.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/25/wisconsin-to-recount-ballots-after-claims-of-irregularities/

In fact yesterday it was reported that one county (Oneida) misreported their results, and approximately 450 votes were taken away from Trump by mistake. It was reported he recieved 44 votes when actually he recieve 434 (or something close to that). It happens both ways in the heat of election day.

[anamandujano]

43. There were at least 3 counties and mistakes at each favored Trump. Coincidence? Doubt it.

[forthemiddle]

44. Actually 2 others favored Clinton

Sauk County, and Oneida County also had election night errors.

http://www.wiscnews.com/baraboonewsrepublic/news/local/article_41d3b013-3e68-52e1-b348-85d647c221b1.html

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/28/elections-staff-layout-recount-timeline/94539210/

I wonder why those weren't mentioned?

[anamandujano]

46. Could you pull out quotes from your links that state 2 errors favored Clinton? I skimmed them

and could find nothing of the sort.

Thanks in advance.

[forthemiddle]

47. Sure

The first article never actually states that it favored Clinton, but if you compare the totals from the first count it has Clinton beating Trump 16,050 to 15,871 but when you look at the official total that was actually reported after canvassing you will see that Trump actually beat Clinton 14,791 to 14,692. In this case both numbers were off due to a double count by the memory stick.

In the second article that refers to Onieda county it his hidden in the rest of the story, but here it is.
Even before the recount began, Trump’s unofficial lead of 22,177 was due to grow by 440 votes, as officials moved to correct a reporting error in Oneida County. Trump’s vote in the Town of Hazelhurst had been recorded as 44 instead of 484. (Clinton’s vote total was 330 in the same town).

My point is that there will always be errors, and that is why the count isn't official until the canvassing is done.

[anamandujano]

49. That doesn't in any way match the 5K votes padded on to Trump's total & only removed AFTER

they were caught by bright eyes on the internet.

It every case it was Trump's numbers that fluctuated. Hillary's numbers were consistent. Doesn't that seem strange? Some padding they caught; some they didn't.

I'm way beyond the point of trusting anything WI officials say.

I'll trust the recount, mainly because I will have no choice.

[radius777]

54. Exactly, every major "error" magically broke in Drumpf's favor

which just isn't statistically normal.

He was way behind in the polls, lost the popular vote by a wide margin, and just "happened" to barely nudge out wins in the swing states he needed to win.

As the Church Lady would say, "Why, isn't that special?"

This election was car-jacked in broad daylight, from vote padding, intimidation, CrossCheck, repeal of the Voting Rights Act (first presidential election in 50 years to not be protected by in), Comey, FBI, Russians.

The Election was Stolen Here's How
So how could these multi-million-dollar Ph.d-directed statisticians with decades of experience get exit polls so wrong?

Answer: they didn’t. The polls in Florida in 2000 were accurate. That’s because exit pollsters can only ask, “How did you vote?” What they don’t ask, and can’t, is, “Was your vote counted.”

[Farmgirl1961]

56. Thanks for keeping us informed. Much appreciated.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. The "written law" is in conflict with Federal Law of the land which says voter intent supersedes ...

... the findings of a machine.

The law, as written, states proof must be shown that a hand recount will show a more accurate result. Using that to justify blocking a hand recount is just plain silly. A hand recount ALWAYS shows a more accurate result due to the arbitrary nature in which a machine spoils ballots and ignores voter intent.

[forthemiddle]

10. That may be true

But you would still have to have proof that the voters intent wasn't reflected. There has been no proof.
Jill Stein was saying that the machines were hacked, and that is why she wanted the hand count, not that voter intent wasn't reflected.

Also, if voters intent was truly the law of the land (not sure what Federal law you are talking about), then that would make the voting machines illegal on their face, and that, obviously isn't the case.

Your "gut feeling", and dislike of the result is not proof of fraud, or hacking which is what the Judge would have had to find to essentially rewrite the law.

Like it or not, she was following Wisconsin law as it was written.

[anamandujano]

35. Here is your evidence.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/11/25/breaking-wisconsin-audit-shows-stunning-irregularity-more-votes-counted-than-ballots-cast/

It is more than likely that this happened elsewhere.

[forthemiddle]

41. story debunked from Snopes

Those were election night tally mistakes that were corrected the next morning, before they were officially reported.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/25/wisconsin-to-recount-ballots-after-claims-of-irregularities/

[hamsterjill]

30. I agree.

I hope the recount efforts will take this to a higher court.

I am assuming that Stein's recount movement, and particularly Clinton's now that she is involved, have probably already anticipated these types of issues, and I'm hoping that they are prepared for them and can advance the cause around those issues.

[anamandujano]

37. That is where all the money is going.

I am also hoping they can appeal.

[Bad Dog]

12. it still seems well dodgy.

I don't know why you have to use machines in the first place.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

13. According the article, law says all counties can be required to do

do handcounts IF it can be shown that its" necessary" - my understanding is that since a certain types of fraud are non-detectable by simply rerunning the same program that would IMHO make it a "necessity." Sorta like if you have symptoms of an illness but the test the doctor runs is known to be incapable of detecting the specific pathogen. Like, what's the point?

Catch 22 - maybe there's not conclusive "evidence" but there are the statistical anomalies and other red flags cited in the testimony of the experts - so how are you supposed to get the conclusive evidence if you cant run the proper tests? WHAT CONSTITUTES sufficient "PROOF" to order the hand recont of all counties? That's the question.

Disclaimer: Im not a lawyer, just saying there was a rationale for going to the courts and it's not accurate to say that by doing so they're trying to "shut down the written law."

Well I do trust the atty's and experts that are involved in this - theyve been working on this stuff since 2004 Ohio at least. We dont have to tell them that they need to pay close attention to the process of recount itself, how the various counties handle it, whether obstructions & questionsable activities are observed, etc. etc. etc.

Wonder which are the ones that are refusing handcounts? Ill try to refrain from being judgemental, but I think I can guess!

[forthemiddle]

14. The Judge asked the expert if it had ever happened in Wisconsin

And the hacking expert had to admit that it had never happened. So without proof you can't go on "it's possible".

53 of our 72 counties are hand counting, so if anything funky shows up I am sure that could be brought back to the court for reconsideration. It is my understanding though that Milwaukee (the biggest area of the state) is not hand counting, but using the machines. So if someone lives in Milwaukee county they may want to call the Clerk and voice your complaint.


My biggest question isn't Wisconsin, but Michigan and Pennsylvania. How are they possibly going to get the recount done before 12/13/16 as required by Federal law?

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

18. What is "it" - did "it" ever happen in Wisconsin? If you mean to say electronic fraud, then

the correct answer would be "I don't know."

If you mean to say proven in a court of law and/or in possession of evidence admissible in court - then no.

If you mean to say statistical anomalies/red flags suggestive of possible fraud - then yes. Otherwise, if those are lacking or sketchy, then what's the point and money would be better spent elsewhere....IMHO.
.

[forthemiddle]

21. Here is a link

To the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal article
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/29/steins-recount-headed-court-tuesday/94598740/

"In all but one case, the experts called by Stein acknowledged that they had no evidence that any hacking had happened. The one exception was testimony by University of California-Berkeley's Philip Stark about a statistical analysis that found unusual patterns in the digits of vote totals reported in certain smaller election wards in Wisconsin. Those patterns are not proof of any problem with the election, however"

The Judge also admits "despite her personal opinions" that she must follow the law in this case.

Please read the whole article, it is an excellent layout of what I was clumsily trying to explain.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

58. Ok thx - so nothing about absentee ballot weirdness or exit polls being much further off in certain

cos with the more "hackable" machines... none of that?

Ah well. Its really hard to sort out fact from fiction these days. I thought they had more than that.

[rainy]

26. The proof is that there were more votes reported then the number of people who

actually walked in and voted.

[Tiggeroshii]

53. They are doing hand recounts because it is faster.

Booting up the machines again and reprogramming them, will take an unnecessarily longer amount of time then just counting the hand receipts. Stein's argument should have been geared towards respecting the December 13 deadline for the recount. Not for catching fraud.

[DK504]

17. Not surprised.

Using the KKKons to shut down the democratic precess. God forbid we count the votes.

[Ohioblue22]

3. Using the courts to shut down recounts

[Vinca]

4. The damn machines - who knows how they might be programmed.

[Blue Idaho]

28. If other civilized nations

Can handcount paper ballots for each and every election, why can't we?

[mdbl]

7. but partisan judges can't be bothered with finding out facts

so sad.

[Baitball Blogger]

11. Can they appeal?

[forthemiddle]

15. I'm sure they can

But that appeal would go to Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Dane County has, notoriously, the most liberal judges in Wisconsin, so if they voted against it, I find it hard pressed to imagine that the Wi Supreme Court would rule otherwise.

[Baitball Blogger]

20. It should be appealed, just the same.

There might be a crack in the Republican veneer.

It does feel like Wisconsin has something to hide.

[forthemiddle]

22. 53 of 72 counties

Will be hand counting by choice, so I am sure if anomalies come up, they can go back to court.

[Baitball Blogger]

24. Phenom. Thanks.

[KittyWampus]

48. Thank you.

[yurbud]

16. I understand Hillary's lawyer is a lawyer, but the problem is a little more serious than

accidental inaccuracy.

Machine counts can be rigged and not just or even primarily by those sneaky Russkies.

[Ellipsis]

19. Anybody know which countys are not handcounting?

[forthemiddle]

23. I haven't seen a list

But I did hear on the radio this morning that Milwaukee will not be handcounting.

[Aimee in OKC]

55. Find out which ones are not hand-counting and do an FOIA demand.

Wisconsin: work with the map after determining which ones aren't cooperating.

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/state/55

Because the machines do capture some sort of image to 'read' the ballots, definitely the Optical Scan ones. The images are supposed to be anonymous, therefore there should be no problem with election officials providing that non-identifying information.

Get notarized copies of an FOIA demand to see the images of the machines from the non-handcounting jurisdictions. Take a copy to that election office in charge of the one(s) you want to investigate. Bring at least two brand-new, still-wrapped flash drives to download the files. Count the votes you're interested in & place into a spreadsheet for tracking purposes. Spread the information.

[Ellipsis]

57. I think it'll be a little simpler then that.

[Aimee in OKC]

59. Maybeso, maybeno ...

In these times, better to have something & not need it, than to need it & not have it.

[radalpha]

25. A Real Audit

The integrity of the electoral process demands checking. It is unlikely that the individual hand counts will be significantly wrong since it is usually a bipartisan group that counts. The real errors can come in votes being added, subtracted or transferred during the accounting process, not counted (see "Crosscheck&quot due to spoiled provisional balloting, and machine errors (which require spot checking with hand counts). Focusing on those areas should be the most productive.

[Blue Idaho]

27. So 3.5 million dollars to do what?

Re-tally the precinct results? Not much of a deal there. I think it's time to go to court to demand an actual "recount."

[anamandujano]

39. I just read that they upped the price from 1.1 million. Stein griped but handed it over.

[Blue Idaho]

52. But to do what?

Just how deep will they dig for their "fee?" Just far enough to say they did "something?"

[benpollard]

29. Ambiguity of voter intent not a factor

With a machine recount, if the voter intent is ambiguous, then what the machine determines won't favor either candidate and will have no bearing on the accuracy of the results.

I would guess that people who have trouble marking the ballot accurately are elderly and would probably favor Trump, anyway.

[philosslayer]

33. The fix is in

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?????

[Sunlei]

36. back when they used those scanning machines for student test scores they missed lots of 'bubbles'

'counted a student test answer as blank, no answer'

That's why the extraordinary number of BLANK ballots, (about 100,000? in that state alone) need a hand check.

[lark]

50. Yeah, this is exactly what I expected.

[pbmus]

51. Must be just another..

Scott walker , Koch brothers ass licker