Wisconsin Recount

[Hans Blaster]

Election officials are not at liberty to alter ballots on their own initiative, and that goes for the necessary, identifying information required on the security envelope.

The envelope is *not* part of the ballot. It is the container that the ballot arrives in. As I noted, it's not "their initiative" it is their *duty* and they do so using a procedure sent to them by the state elections commission.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Elections should be conducted fairly. And ballots are indeed invalidated when the voter makes a mistake. This is how it always has been.

A mismarked ballot *will* be invalidated (such as voting for two candidates for president, but only the presidential vote is invalid in this example). NO BALLOTS ARE BEING ALTERED BY CLERKS.

For in person voters, the election workers *are* the witnesses to the identity of the voter. For absentee voters checking the witnesses is equivalent to making sure that the ID checker initialed the poll book. No one sees the ballot then, and no clerk "fixing" the witness ID sees the ballot either.

 

[Hank77]

Election officials are not at liberty to alter ballots on their own initiative, and that goes for the necessary, identifying information required on the security envelope.

The state Elections Commission has the authority to tell the clerks how to deal with election issues.

The state Elections Commission sent a memo to clerks on Oct. 19, 2020, instructing them how to spoil absentee ballots for voters who wanted to vote in person. The memo also provides guidance on how to handle absentee ballot errors, including missing witness signatures or addresses.

“The witness can appear without the voter to add their signature or address,” the memo states. “Please note that the clerk should attempt to resolve any missing witness address information prior to Election Day if possible, and this can be done through reliable information (personal knowledge, voter registration information, through a phone call with the voter or witness). The witness does not need to appear to add a missing address.”
...
The commission’s public information officer, Reid Magney, said this guidance has been in place since October 2016 and was brought forward that year by Republicans on the commission. Indeed, an Oct. 18, 2016 memo states that clerks are required to “take corrective actions in an attempt to remedy a witness address error.”

“The guidance has been in effect for 11 statewide elections, including the 2016 presidential and presidential recount, and no one has objected to it until now,” he said.
Wisconsin clerks altered ballot information according to guidance

Seeing that it was in effect in 2016 election, maybe Trump didn't win in Wisconsin after all?

 

[Albion]

How long an erroneous practice has been in force does not decide its legality. If that were the case, all sorts of racial laws could not have been overthrown in our past. The supporters would simply have had to say what you are contending here--But we always have done it this way, so it cannot be wrong.

In addition, none of the people here who rushed to exonerate the election inspectors really do know how it was, so there's no point in continuing to guess.

 

[Sparagmos]

Elections should be conducted fairly. And ballots are indeed invalidated when the voter makes a mistake. This is how it always has been.

Not true. Ballot curing is legal, and for good reason. No one’s vote should be thrown out over a mistake if the mistake can be remedied.

It is not the job of the election worker, an identified Republican or Democrat, to change ballots on their own initiative, whether or not they say they're doing someone a favor.

In Wisconsin, it is. States conduct elections and determine the process in their state.

If they had nothing to hide, they'd of course unfold the ballot so it could be seen.

Why do you keep repeating this? Do you have a source that the ballots weren’t being unfolded? The article simply states that the observers were objecting to ballots that were folded when they were taken out, not that the poll workers weren’t unfolding them.

 

[Albion]

Not true.

Well, I think elections should be conducted fairly. Maybe I was assuming too much to say that they should be fair without further clarification.

No one’s vote should be thrown out over a mistake if the mistake can be remedied.

It's unfortunate, yes, but there's no justice if a poll worker can alter a ballot for another person without that person's knowledge and change critical information. What's more, you assume, I think, that such a worker will change every such ballot that passes before him instead of throwing some out and "correcting" others to his own liking.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How long an erroneous practice has been in force does not decide its legality.

Your declaration of it being "erroneous" does not decide that it is, in fact, erroneous

 

[Speedwell]

Well, I think elections should be conducted fairly. Maybe I was assuming too much to say that they should be fair without further clarification.


It's unfortunate, yes, but there's no justice if a poll worker can alter a ballot for another person without that person's knowledge and change critical information. What's more, you assume, I think, that such a worker will change every such ballot that passes before him instead of throwing some out and "correcting" others to his own liking.

How would this worker know which ballots to keep and which to throw out? The corrections and completions are made to the ballot envelope before the ballot s taken out of it.

 

[Sparagmos]

Well, I think elections should be conducted fairly. Maybe I was assuming too much to say that they should be fair without further clarification.


It's unfortunate, yes, but there's no justice if a poll worker can alter a ballot for another person and change critical information. What's more, you assume, I think, that such a worker will change every such ballot that passes before him instead of throwing some out and "correcting" others to his own liking.

They aren’t altering ballots. Are you not reading any of these posts informing you of what is happening and why?

We get it, you don’t think ballot curing is “fair.” But it’s legal and it’s purpose is to not disqualify a legitimate vote because of an honest mistake.

 

[Albion]

They aren’t altering ballots.

You don't know that. Neither do the observers if they are not allowed to observe and speak up, for which privilege the State of Wisconsin extorted three million dollars from the Trump campaign and then tried to keep the process from functioning anyway.

And as for wording, how would you prefer us to describe security envelopes?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How would you prefer us to describe security envelopes in order to gild the lily properly enough to continue the discussion?

truthfully would be a step in the right direction.

 

[hedrick]

In NC, a Federal judge required the state to provide a cure process. Federal Judge Orders Notice and Cure Process for Absentee Ballots in LWV North Carolina Case

 

[Hans Blaster]

And as for wording, how would you prefer us to describe security envelopes?

As containers. They are NOT ballots. And the "modifications" take place WHILE THE ENVELOPES ARE SEALED.

 

[lasthero]

You don't know that. Neither do the observers if they are not allowed to observe and speak up, for which privilege the State of Wisconsin extorted three million dollars from the Trump campaign and then tried to keep the process from functioning anyway.

Extort? State law does not require a recount, and it clearly says that, with a margin greater than .25%, the requester has to pay. That is not extortion. Nobody made Trump pay that.

And that brings up a point that's been bugging me - why did Trump only pay for a recount in two counties? If he thinks this is a statewide problem, which seems to be his contention, why isn't going for a full recount?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Neither do the observers if they are not allowed to observe and speak up, for which privilege the State of Wisconsin extorted three million dollars from the Trump campaign and then tried to keep the process from functioning anyway.

From what I've read, it is the Republican/Trump observers of the recount that are slowing things down.

And why should two counties with financial stresses of their own be required to expend $3 million because some whinny candidate who lost by more than 0.25% wants a futile recount just because he wants it?

 

[Albion]

Extort? State law does not require a recount, and it clearly says that, with a margin greater than .25%, the requester has to pay.

Yes, well it cost this much to recount only TWO counties in 2020.

Four years ago, when Hillary went for a recount in Wisconsin, she was entitled to a recount of the entire state--70+ counties--for about the same amount.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Extort? State law does not require a recount, and it clearly says that, with a margin greater than .25%, the requester has to pay. That is not extortion. Nobody made Trump pay that.

Nobody except his own ego. A better man would accept his loss by now.

But instead of one day of Donald losing, we get over two weeks of it... Hanukkah has come early this year.

And that brings up a point that's been bugging me - why did Trump only pay for a recount in two counties? If he thinks this is a statewide problem, which seems to be his contention, why isn't going for a full recount?

The point that's bugging me is how do we know he's paying for the recount... the man still has access to the US treasury, and a DOJ that's basically his doormat, who's stopping him from raiding the world's largest piggy bank?

 

[Arcangl86]

Yes, well it cost this much to recount only TWO counties in 2020.

Four years ago, when Hillary went for a recount in Wisconsin, she was entitled to a recount of the entire state--70+ counties--for about the same amount.

Hillary Clinton never went for a recount in WI. That was Jill Stein. And they charged her 3.5 million up front. And that was before the state passed a bill adding recounts more expensive by making the person asking for the recount pay for what it cost the Election Commission to run the recount.

 

[lasthero]

Yes, well it cost this much to recount only TWO counties in 2020.

I'm no expert, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say it has something to do with Milwaukee County having, well...Milwaukee in it. You know, the largest and most populous city in Wisconsin. So, maybe, the amount has to do with the population. Just a crazy thought.

Four years ago, when Hillary went for a recount in Wisconsin, she was entitled to a recount of the entire state--70+ counties--for about the same amount.

Hm. What's different between now and 2016?

Well...

"These estimates are significantly higher than the actual costs of the 2016 recount, but they take into account factors not present four years ago, including the need for larger spaces to permit public observation and social distancing, security for those spaces, the higher number of absentee ballots, a compressed timeframe over a holiday, and renting high-speed ballot scanning equipment," Wolfe said.

Wisconsin recount would cost Trump campaign $7.9 million - CNNPolitics

There you go.

 

[7thKeeper]

Hillary Clinton never went for a recount in WI. That was Jill Stein. And they charged her 3.5 million up front. And that was before the state passed a bill adding recounts more expensive by making the person asking for the recount pay for what it cost the Election Commission to run the recount.

And the irony of Steins actions is that the end result was a few hundred votes more for both Hillary and Trump.