Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
"All three Democratic state senators targeted for recalls will have to fight for their seats this summer after election officials on Wednesday refused to throw out petitions circulated against them, despite finding evidence of fraud." Elections board certifies recalls against 3 Dem senators:
The Government Accountability Board expressed concern about fraud and forgery committed by some signature gatherers, and voted to reject hundreds of signatures it determined were collected by people who misrepresented the petitions.
Many signatures circulated by a woman named Sherri Ferrell on Indian reservations, for example, were thrown out because of numerous affidavits accusing her of misleading people by saying the petitions were to support schools, Democrats and tribal rights.
"If it is some outrageous misrepresentation done to a specific group of people, one might say it's a pattern," board member Gordon Myse said.
Even after signatures were rejected, there still were enough to force recalls against Sens. Dave Hansen of Green Bay, Bob Wirch of Pleasant Prairie and Jim Holperin of Conover.
Wednesday's decision, made by a nonpartisan board of six retired judges, can be appealed in circuit court. The attorney for the Democrats, Jeremy Levinson, said he needed to talk to his clients about whether they want to appeal.
This is how Tea-Publicans roll:
Levinson told board members Democrats found widespread "fraud and malfeasance" in efforts to recall the three senators, and urged them to invalidate thousands of signatures and reject all three recall efforts.
Levinson said circulators hired by a Colorado company paid by Republicans to collect signatures were motivated by money, not the issues facing Wisconsin, and committed much of the fraud. And he cited problems such as a petition purportedly signed by the deceased father of state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.
Board member Gerald Nichol said "we have to send a message" fraud won't be tolerated. But he and other board members didn't back throwing out all of the petitions.
Shane Falk, staff counsel for GAB, said staff found not only systemic fraud but also a "cavalier attitude" among some of the signature gatherers and recall organizers.
Falk said organizers knew "they were receiving obviously bogus signatures."
Falk also raised concern about out-of-state signature gatherers because some listed hotels or post office boxes in other states as addresses, making it difficult to reach them.
The judges on the board agreed fraud was a problem but said they feared they would dismiss valid signatures if they threw out all of the petitions gathered.
In addition to widespread fraud in gathering recall petition signatures against the three Democrats:
The Republican Party of Wisconsin has encouraged protest candidates to run as Democrats in an effort to force primaries in some of the recalls targeting Republicans. See also GOP Senate leader endorses running spoiler candidates.
Former La Crosse County Republican leader James Smith said Wednesday he plans to run against Democratic Rep. Jennifer Shilling in a Wisconsin Senate recall election. Shilling who announced her bid in April to unseat Kapanke.
The primary election for Republican challengers would be July 19, and the general election would be Aug. 16.
The "sham candidate" strategy is something we saw on an unusual scale during the 2010 election. In Arizona we saw the "Green Scheme" Siphon Scandal with sham Green Party candidates recruited by Republican Party operatives in 2010. Republican voter fraud "Green" scheme; Green Party sues to remove 11 "sham" candidates from the ballot; Update: Federal judge allows GOP-recruited "sham" Green Party candidates to remain on the ballot:
[O]n Thursday when U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell conceded that his hands are tied by election deadlines and he refused to grant a temporary injunction kicking 9 "sham" Green Party candidates recruited by Republican Party officials off the November ballot.
Judge Campbell said that issuing an emergency order now removing the candidates' names from the ballot, before a full-blown hearing on the merits of the case, would not be fair to the candidates themselves. Judge won't kick Green Party candidates off ballot. This is procedurally correct, but it fail[ed] to address the substance of the lawsuit. (emphasis added).
The Green Party argued that the law that allowed the 11 candidates to qualify under the Green Party label violates the party's First Amendment rights "by forcing them to associate with candidates who have not been selected by the (party) and who do not represent the (party's) values and platform."
It also complained that election laws set a different standard for qualifying candidates for major parties, such as the Democrats and Republicans, than for minor parties, such as the Greens. That is discriminatory and violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the suit alleges.
As I said at the time, "The Green Party is on solid constitutional grounds with its First Amendment right of association and 14th Amendment equal protection arguments." See generally, US Supreme Court Cases from Justia.com:
The major expansion of the right of association has occurred in the area of political rights. “There can no longer be any doubt that freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas is a form of ‘orderly group activity’ protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments…. The right to associate with the political party of one’s choice is an integral part of this basic constitutional freedom.” Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56-57 (1973).
* * *
Usually in combination with an equal protection analysis, the Court since Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), has passed on numerous state restrictions that have an impact upon the ability of individuals or groups to join one or the other of the major parties or to form and join an independent political party to further political, social and economic goals. E.g., Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973) (time deadline for enrollment in party in order to vote in next primary); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973) (barring voter from party primary if he voted in another party’s primary within preceding 23 months); American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) (ballot access restriction); Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (number of signatures to get party on ballot); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1982) (limit on contributions to associations formed to support or oppose referendum measure); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982) (resign-to-run law).
* * *
The state interest in protecting the integrity of political parties was held to justify requiring enrollment of a person in the party up to eleven months before a primary election, Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973), but not to justify requiring one to forgo one election before changing parties.
* * *
The protected right of association extends as well to coverage of party principles, enabling a political party to assert against some state regulation an overriding interest sufficient to overcome the legitimate interests of the governing body. Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981). See also Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975).
The Wisconsin Republican Party is demonstrating a shocking disregard for the law and the Constitution, and a shocking contempt for the democratic election process. They are behaving like a criminal syndicate.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.