My sources tell me that the plaintiffs have obtained at least partial relief in their suit against the GAB this afternoon. The circuit court has apparently ruled that the GAB does have the power - and the duty - to strike duplicates, illegible signatures and fictitious names.
More to fellow. Guess that suit wasn't frivolous.
12 comments:
So where specifically--that is, the exact wording-does the statute require the GAB to review the petitions?
Same place that says "workers rights"
or "freedom of choice"
or "freedom from religion"
If you find those, Mr Anonymous, you'll find the answer to your question
Anon: Quoted in a previous post:
Sec. 9.10 of the statutes governs recall and requires that "[w]ithin 31 days after the petition is offered for filing, the official with whom the petition is offered for filing shall determine by careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient and so state in a certificate attached to the petition."
Mazo Jeff--Thank you for your effort to address the question, but it is apparent that you do not have a cogent response. At least you tried!
Anony 10:55 a.m.--Yes, you provided a previous post that contains reference to a statute, but which one? The one in question? A different one?
I am referring to this statute--gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/publication/64/gab002_pdf_11639.odf
Section 2.05(4) states the "presumption of validity" portion. Section 2.07 details the "challenge" procedures; and before anybody says "that's only for nomination paper, not petitions", section 2.11(1) says that it applies to recall petitions as well.
From my understanding, recall rules state that only the party being recalled can contest the legitimacy of the signatures, so it would NOT be the GAB's responsibility according to the statute to intervene on the behalf of the party.
Just because the GAB COULD do it does not mean it ought to be COMPELLED to do it.
Having made this statement, however, I am in a quandry, because in the interest of fair play, perhaps the GAB SHOULD become involved in this particular case given its significance.
On the other hand, it would seem it would be the duty of the state legislature to clarify the role of the GAB in these instances (i.e. a recall election) and not a court of law.
Otherwise, if a judge ordered the GAB to review every recall signature in this particular circumstance (the recall of Walker), then it would appear the GAB must take on this responsibility in ALL recalls, big or small.
Would this decision be therefore a case of Judicial overreach or activism that conservatives allegedly have disdain? Should the legislature, and not a court of law, remedy the situation? It would seem to me the law is clear cut.
Besides, why only now is there clarification sought about the role of the GAB in this specific matter? Why wasn't clarification sought in the last round of recall elections regarding the verification of signatures by the GAB?
Anon:
Your question was: "So where specifically--that is, the exact wording-does the statute require the GAB to review the petitions?"
I answered it! Note the words 'careful examination' as well as their definitions, if you will.
"As for your question: "Why wasn't clarification sought in the last round of recall elections regarding the verification of signatures by the GAB?"
I've wondered the same and was prepared to do some research.
I seem to remember the Kapanke campaign questioning the GAB's intentions.
Anony 2:14 p.m.
The statute you cite indeed states that the GAB must decide whether there are enough valid signatures to force public officials into recall elections. Yes, the GAB does review the petition.
That is NOT the issue in question.
The GAB says the law requires that recall targets themselves be responsible for identifying and challenging petition signatures.
The GAB is investigating and certifying that, yes, there are enough signatures that legally constitute a recall. Sure, if the GAB finds obviously fake names, the name are struck.
The GAB contend, however, that it is NOT obligated by statute to conduct an exhaustive process to further verify every signatures, i.e. link those signatures to an actual name.
So the legal question is what TYPE of review does the GAB perform when it comes to verifying signatures in a recall election.
Again, it would seem to clear to me that the law places the burden upon the person being recalled to contest the eligibility of signatures and potential duplicate signatures...NOT the GAB.
Should the GAB undertake this role (a thorough investigation)? Perhaps.
Has the GAB undertaken this role in the past? No.
Is it mandated under the statute that the GAB undertake this role? No, according to the parts of the statute that I had listed.
To me, it would seem that the legislature, not a court of law, should rectify the situation. Otherwise, if a judge rules that the GAB must undertake this role, then one could argue the decision was based on judicial activism. And I thought that was a big no-no among conservatives.
"I seem to remember the Kapanke campaign questioning the GAB's intentions."
When? Why? Under what context? To what end?
I eagerly await your research to shed light on this statement.
I am confused here. Are the two anonymouses (is that anonymi?) or one with a split personality. I need to be cogent! My comments were meant to convey the thought that assumptions have been made based on one's interpretation of what the verbiage in the Statute meant/intended. My interpretation was that the "careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient" to mean an examination as to the validity of signatures. Not just a cursory look to see if the i's are dotted.
My understanding, Professor, correct me if I am wrong was the Judge brought up the concern for "equal protection"; that the voters who voted in the election of 2010 will not be "disenfranchised" by dubious petitioners.
PS: I interpreted the "presumption of validity" and "challenges" as two separate items. Someone can sign my name and address to which the GAB may "validate" my name and address and the petition gatherer attests to my signature similar to a notary public. Yet I can challenge that in fact I did not sign.
Mazo Jeff--My interpretation was that the "careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient" to mean an examination as to the validity of signatures. Not just a cursory look to see if the i's are dotted.
Then it will be interesting to see whether a judge looks at that part of the statute and invents a new role for the GAB, rather than rely on Section 2.05, 2.07, and 2.11.
Post a Comment