Wisconsin: Democrats File Rebuttal To GOP Lawsuit Against Recall Procedures | TPM

Wisconsin Democrats late Tuesday filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit that state Republicans filed on Thursday against state election officials, with the Dems seeking to become legal parties to counter the GOP’s claims that the procedures in the recall targeting Gov. Scott Walker are a violation of Walker’s rights.

A copy of the filing, made in the names of the Committee to Recall Walker and other organizers, was sent to TPM by the state Democratic Party.
The state GOP’s lawsuit filed Thursday afternoon against the state Government Accountability Board, which oversees elections in the state, claims that Walker’s 14th Amendment rights of Equal Protection are violated by putting a burden on his campaign to review and challenge petition signatures within a ten-day period. Instead, they say, the GAB must make a greater effort to look for duplicate signatures, and for invalid names and addresses. (The petitions will be filed in mid-January, which will then kick off the review process. The same procedures were used in a series of state Senate recalls, on both sides of the aisle, earlier this year.)

Wisconsin: Walker, GOP sue state elections and ethics agency over recall effort | JSOnline

Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign and the state Republican Party director sued the state’s elections and ethics agency in Waukesha on Thursday over its handling of duplicate and bogus signatures in the ongoing recall effort against the governor. The top GOP lawmaker in the Assembly also took a shot at the Government Accountability Board – which he voted to create – saying it had strayed from its nonpartisan mission and might need to be replaced.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in Waukesha County Circuit Court asks a judge to order the accountability board to look for and eliminate duplicate signatures, clearly fake names and illegible addresses. The lawsuit can be brought in one of the most conservative counties in the state because of a change in state law earlier this year by Republican lawmakers and Walker that allowed lawsuits to be brought against the state outside liberal Dane County, the seat of state government.

Wisconsin: No charges to be filed in Milwaukee recall election investigations | WisPolitics.com

No charges will be brought against two groups that were accused of election law violations in the run-up to the August recall election of Sen. Alberta Darling, according to a statement released this morning.

“It is unclear, at best, whether an offer to pay persons to gathers absentee ballot applications on a quota basis comes within the scope of the Election Bribery statute,” wrote Asst. Dist. Atty. Bruce Landgraf, the lead prosecutor on the case for Milwaukee County. “The statute as currently written does not give much guidance to those who wish to follow the dictates of the law, especially in the area of absentee voting.”

Wisconsin Right to Life gave campaign workers $25 gift cards for every 15 voters sympathetic to the anti-abortion cause that were enlisted for absentee voting. Wisconsin Jobs Now, a community and labor group, held five block parties on the northwest side of Milwaukee. They provided food, prizes and a lift to Milwaukee City Hall where voters could cast absentee ballots.

Tennessee: Chattanoogas strange linguistic problem with the recall | Recall Elections

Chattanooga’s mayoral recall has taken a turn into a joint constitutional crisis and linguistic nightmare, as the election commission, city council and (eventually) the courts will have to grapple with an almost unheard of problem — what does a “recall” mean?

The issue is that a section of the city’s charter holds that in case the mayor is unable to serve for a host of reasons, the chair of the council becomes interim mayor. One of the reasons cited is simply “recall.” The council, commission and others are debating whether the phrase recall means removed from office after a retention or new election vote or ordered to face a new election or retention vote due to petitioners gathering enough signatures to get a recall on the ballot.

Wisconsin: Recall election costs projected in millions | Appleton Post Crescent

At least $650,000 will be needed by state election officials to cover the costs of handling petitions for Wisconsin’s upcoming wave of recalls, according to a memo from the state Government Accountability Board. But that estimate doesn’t include costs for local governments, which are expected to be in the millions statewide.

The election watchdog agency said it will need an additional $652,699 to cover recall expenses, including personnel costs, mainly from hiring and supervising about 50 temporary workers to review as many as 1.5 million signatures, renting additional office space, buying supplies and equipment and doing public outreach about the state’s new voter ID law.

Wisconsin: Walker Opponents Plagued By Threats, Thefts | WISC Madison

Opponents of Gov. Scott Walker said they have faced threats and thefts in the days since the recall effort began. Two volunteers in the petition drive reported violent threats made against them to the police. Neighbors in Monona also complained to authorities of politically motivated thefts from their yards.

The threats involved phone calls from an area code in Minnesota. The calls came overnight after Walker’s opponents began the recall, said Madison resident Tom Peer, who said he received a call at 2 a.m. on Thursday. “They said, ‘If you don’t stop circulating recall petitions, we will kill you,'” said Peer.

Wisconsin: Elections panel estimates $650,000 state cost for recall efforts | JSOnline

State election officials anticipate they will need an extra $650,000 next year for a new wave of recall efforts that will require them to review petitions with perhaps 1.5 million signatures. Those costs would go toward hiring 50 temporary workers, renting office space to house them and the petitions, and running advertisements about the state’s new requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls.

The preliminary estimates from the state Government Accountability Board do not include the recall costs for local officials, which are expected to be much higher than those for the state if enough signatures are gathered to hold elections. The board is still developing estimates for what the costs would be for local officials. Recall elections this year for nine state senators cost state and local taxpayers $2.1 million, according to the board.

Michigan: Recall vote against Rep. Paul Scott is back on | Detroit Free Press

The on-again, off-again recall election targeting state Rep. Paul Scott, R-Grand Blanc, is on again for Nov. 8 following a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court to dissolve a lower court injunction to block it that was issued only last week.

The ruling is the latest twist in a political battle fought largely in the courtroom in recent weeks as Scott’s attorneys challenged the validity of recall petition signatures that had been collected at a time when an earlier legal challenge to petition signatures was pending.

Wisconsin: Senate recalls should occur in existing districts, elections official says | JSOnline

State senators who face recall elections in the coming months will have to run in their existing districts rather than newly drawn ones that favor Republicans, the state’s top elections official said Wednesday.

The opinion by Kevin Kennedy, director of the Government Accountability Board, will help Democrats as they try to take over the Senate by launching recall petition drives as early as next month. It also raises the prospect of a fierce legal battle over the issue, as Republicans could ask a court to require the elections in the new districts. The accountability board, which consists of six former judges, will review Kennedy’s opinion Nov. 9 and decide whether to sign off on it.

Nine senators – six Republicans and three Democrats – faced recall elections this year because of their stances on Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s legislation that greatly limited collective bargaining for public workers. Democrats gained two seats in those elections.

Arizona: Olivia Cortes withdraws from Pearce recall race | Arizona Republic

Candidate Olivia Cortes on Thursday withdrew from the Legislative District 18 recall election of Senate President Russell Pearce amid ongoing allegations that her campaign was a sham set up by Pearce supporters to pull votes away from opponent Jerry Lewis.

Pearce will now face only fellow Republican Lewis in the first recall election of a sitting legislator in state history.

document Cortes’ voluntary withdrawal | Recall coverage | Watch Pearce debate live today

Cortes said in a statement that the “constant intimidation and harassment” led to her withdrawal. And her attorney said that the move was the condition of a deal to stop a court hearing scheduled for today.

Wisconsin: Government Accountability Board fails faster recall rules, evaluates Voter ID stickers | The Badger Herald

On Thursday, state election officials retracted changes which could have circulated recall petitions for the possible upcoming recall efforts more efficiently, including the effort to recall Gov. Scott Walker. At a meeting Thursday, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules oversaw several of the Government Accountability Board’s retracted plans to recall election operations, including the distribution of online petitions.

At the meeting, Kevin Kennedy, head of the GAB, said the rule changes previously sought would allow an individual to open a “petition for recall” online with both their name and address on the form, increasing the speed of the petition’s circulation. This petition would also be considered valid even if this individual was the only one to sign the petition, he said.

Kennedy said this proposition would have allowed for a faster process because groups would not have to gather the signatures face-to-face and the petition signers would not have to fill in their addresses.

Arizona: Cortes drops out of recall election | Mohave Daily News

A Mesa woman running in Senate President Russell Pearce’s recall election has dropped out of the race, halting a legal challenge that claims she was a fraudulent candidate meant to siphon votes from the contest’s other contender.

Olivia Cortes filed a voluntary withdrawal with the Arizona secretary of state’s office Thursday. She later issued a statement saying she dropped out of the race because of what she called “constant intimidation and harassment” of herself, her family, friends and neighbors.

“So for me, the dream of having a voice has died,” Cortes’ statement said, adding that she wanted to address economic, education and immigration concerns. Cortes lawyer Anthony Tsontakis said earlier that his client accepted an offer by attorneys for a Pearce critic to cancel a court hearing Friday if she stepped out of the race.

Arizona: Olivia Cortes will remain on ballot in Pearce recall election, court rules | AZ Central

Recall candidate Olivia Cortes will stay on the Nov. 8 ballot despite allegations that her campaign is part of a fraud, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge has ruled.

Judge Edward Burke heard arguments last week in the lawsuit filed by a Legislative District 18 Republican alleging that Cortes is part of a sham campaign to draw votes away from candidate Jerry Lewis and help Pearce retain his seat. In Monday’s ruling, Burke wrote that no one during the all-day hearing last week “impugned Cortes’ honesty or integrity.”

The judge’s ruling

“The court finds that she is genuinely opposed to what she believes is Pearce’s harsh legislative treatment of and comments about illegal Hispanic immigrants,” Burke wrote.

Arizona: Why the lawsuit against Olivia Cortes had to be aggressively defended | Anthony Tsontakis/Arizona Capitol Times

It’s not because the lawsuit was politically motivated. Everyone knows how unapologetically brutal politics can be. And it’s not because the lawsuit was brought to defame Ms. Cortes, either. Placing your name on a ballot is the functional equivalent of sending the world an open invitation to attack your character.

The reason the lawsuit against Olivia Cortes had to be aggressively defended, rather, is that it asked a judge, without statutory authorization, to inquire into the political beliefs, motivations, associations, and activities of ordinary citizens — and then to find legal liability where no law says there is: in the details of those ideologies, agendas, friends, and practices.

Tom Ryan, the plaintiff’s attorney, built the bulk of his case against Cortes around one concept: the political motivations of Ms. Cortes’ nomination petition circulators.

Arizona: Cortes denies being a sham candidate in Pearce recall election | Arizona Republic

Recall candidate Olivia Cortes took the stand Thursday to defend herself against allegations that she is a sham candidate running to draw votes away from candidate Jerry Lewis and help Senate President Russell Pearce retain his seat. “I wanted to offer my points of view as a naturalized citizen, a concerned citizen for the future of Arizona,” Cortes said. “I want to serve my community.” She said the accusations about her campaign make her feel “bad.”

“I feel they are taking away my constitutional right,” she said. “Anybody can run. I’m running to win. I want to win.”

During her testimony, Cortes said she is paying for her campaign but admitted she hasn’t yet spent any money. She said she does not know who paid professional circulators to collect the signatures to get her on the ballot. She said she also does not know who paid for the signs with her name on it that were put up around West Mesa. She doesn’t know who created her Web site. Cortes said she was not forced or paid to run. She said East Valley Tea Party leader Greg Western is the only one helping her with her campaign and as a political novice, she has left many decisions to him.

Voting Blogs: Arizona and sham candidates — comparing different recall set ups | The Recall Elections Blog

Some interesting discussion by the Election Law Blogger himself, Professor Rick Hasen, focused on Olivia Cortes, the alleged sham candidate in the Russell Pearce. As I’ll explain below, because of the particularities of Arizona law, I don’t find the sham candidate problem that offensive.

For contrast, Hasen notes how California law works. California’s law eliminates sham candidates run to protect the targeted official. It provides for two concurrent votes, one on whether to actually recall the official, and the second (non-partisan) on the replacement. The removed official cannot run in the replacement race (which I believe was the source of debate during the adoption of the recall itself).

I think this is the best system, mainly because it limits costs and provides some contrasts between the official being recalled and the possible replacement. Though not a benefit, I believe the ability to draw a contrast with a successor actually benefits the elected official — as the official has somebody to attack rather than the potentially nebulous recall proponents.

Colorado: Enough signatures collected to recall Saguache County Clerk Myers | Valley Courier

The three-member Committee to Recall Melinda Myers announced Tuesday that volunteers have gathered 816 signatures within the time period prescribed by law, 200 more than needed to move forward and set a date for the county clerk’s recall election.

Committee members Steve Carlson, John Baker and Pat Jenkins supervised more than 10 volunteers who fanned out across rural Saguache County for two months to find signers for the petitions.

“All along I was very confident that the estimated numbers we needed were there,” former commissioner’s candidate Steve Carlson said. “It seemed like a huge task to get this accomplished in the time we had, so I’m proud, happy and thankful for all petition gatherers.” Carlson himself was able to collect signatures for a good number of petitions and several other volunteers filled out two petitions or more.

Wisconsin: GOP lawmakers consider changes to recall petition process | JSOnline

Republican lawmakers signaled Tuesday that they will likely give Gov. Scott Walker authority over how recall petitions can be gathered, just as Democrats gear up to recall him next year.

The move would allow Walker to halt a policy developed by nonpartisan election officials that, at least in theory, could make it easier for groups to gather signatures to recall the governor, as well as legislators from either party. “You have given the governor control of the chicken coop, so to say,” Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) told Republicans.

But GOP lawmakers raised concerns that election officials had gone too far with their interpretation of state laws and said the governor and lawmakers should have a chance to weigh in on them. Under the changes Republicans are considering, Walker would also get to decide whether universities can put stickers on their identification cards that would allow them to be used for voting.

Wisconsin: Moves to change recall election misguided | Political Heat

There’s been a strong push as of late, by Republican legislators in the state and news media alike, to restrict the terms under which recall elections can occur. This call has come after an historic nine recall elections occurred this year alone, more than doubling the number of recalls that had previously been seen at the state legislative level.

… To alter the conditions of recalls would also ignore the intent of what recalls were all about. Our state constitution doesn’t limit why recalls can happen — in fact, no recall election at the legislative level has ever occurred on the bases or merits that the proposed constitutional amendment would restrict them under.

Arizona: Recall bid vs. Pearce a fraud, 2nd claim says | azcentral.com

Chaos erupted Friday in the recall election of Senate President Russell Pearce. A Legislative District 18 voter filed a lawsuit alleging that Olivia Cortes is a sham candidate running with the intention of pulling votes away from candidate Jerry Lewis to help Pearce. The Secretary of State’s Office declined to investigate the same complaint another district voter filed.

Cortes, who has for weeks evaded questions about her candidacy and political positions, on Friday sent out an e-mail announcing a campaign website and seeking voter support. Chandler attorney Tom Ryan filed the lawsuit on behalf of Mary Lou Boettcher. Ryan also represented Citizens for a Better Arizona, the group that collected signatures to get the recall on the ballot. Boettcher, a Republican, was involved in that group.

The lawsuit alleges that Cortes is a “well-known supporter” of Pearce and “has no campaign committee, no volunteers for her campaign and her campaign is being financed and operated entirely by those who wish to dilute the vote in favor of recalled Senator Russell Pearce.” It states that Cortes is a fraudulent and diversionary candidate, in violation of state law.

Voting Blogs: Arizona Needs to Change its Recall Election Laws to Stop Gaming of the System | Election Law Blog

Controversy remains over the Russell Pearce recall election in Arizona.  The claim is that the embattled Senate leader’s campaign has recruited a sham candidate with an Hispanic surname—Olivia Cortes—to run in a way to help Pearce stay in office.  To understand how a sham candidate can help, consider this description of the election:

Pearce didn’t choose the option of resigning from office to avoid facing a recall election, so his name automatically goes on the ballot. He can submit a statement that also would appear on the ballot. He and any other candidates appear on the ballot without a listing of partisan affiliation. Any challenger or challengers must submit petition signatures from at least 621 voters registered in the legislative district. There is no primary, and the candidate winning the most votes wins. Charter-school executive Jerry Lewis has said he’s been encouraged to run and that he’ll make an announcement soon. The election is canceled if there’s no opponent on the ballot to face Pearce.

Wisconsin: No action on voter ID in state legislature | The Oshkosh Northwestern

Republican leaders are considering a move that could make it easier for Gov. Scott Walker to fight off a potential recall election in January.

The Legislature’s rules committee ended its meeting Tuesday without voting on two new Government Accountability Board (GAB) policies dealing with changes in technology and vagaries in the state’s new photo voter ID law. But the committee’s co-chairwoman said she heard enough testimony to warrant further investigation and possible action in the near future.

Sen. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa, said nothing she heard during the three-hour meeting allayed her fears about the new policies by the state’s election watchdog agency. Republican leaders say the rules endanger “clean, fair elections across the board in Wisconsin.”

Wisconsin: DA looking at voter bribery accusations | JSOnline

Milwaukee County prosecutors have opened a John Doe investigation into voter bribery allegations stemming from last month’s state Senate recall elections, according to sources.

Details of the secret investigation are sketchy, but it is clear the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office is investigating charges that Wisconsin Right to Life offered rewards for volunteers who signed up sympathetic voters in the recall races. Several people familiar with the investigation said subpoenas were being distributed “like candy.”

Prosecutors had earlier acknowledged that they also were looking into complaints about get-out-the-vote block parties sponsored by a liberal group, Wisconsin Jobs Now. But Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, who investigates election law violations, now won’t discuss either matter. “Absolutely no comment,” Landgraf said.

Arizona: New lawsuit over Russell Pearce recall election | azfamily.com

There are new developments regarding the Russell Pearce recall election and candidate Olivia Cortes. Many say she is a sham designed to siphon votes from Pearce’s other challenger, Jerry Lewis.

After the secretary of state’s office said it will not investigate allegations of fraud, a Mesa woman filed a lawsuit. Cortes is starting to look more like a legitimate candidate to challenge Senate President Russell Pearce. Her website went live Friday and she issued a press release that says, “I want to have an opportunity, to bring into this race my points of view and observations as a Permanent Alien and later Naturalized American Citizen for over forty years.”

Cortes was home Tuesday and didn’t answer when I dropped by. She didn’t respond Friday when 3TV’s Frank Camacho left her a note or when I called later.

Arizona: State will not investigate recall candidate Cortes | AZ Central

Chaos erupted Friday in the recall election of Senate President Russell Pearce. A Legislative District 18 voter filed a lawsuit alleging that Olivia Cortes is a fraud candidate running with the intention of pulling votes away from candidate Jerry Lewis to help Pearce. The Secretary of State’s Office declined to investigate the same complaint another district voter filed with that office.

Cortes, who has for weeks evaded questions about her candidacy and political positions, on Friday sent out an e-mail announcing a campaign Web site and seeking voter support.

Chandler attorney Tom Ryan filed the lawsuit on behalf of Mary Lou Boettcher. Ryan also represented Citizens for a Better Arizona, the group that collected signatures to get the recall on the ballot. Boettcher, a Republican, was involved in that group.

Wisconsin: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel comes out in favor of recall revision bill | JSOnline

Setting a higher threshold for recall elections in Wisconsin is a good idea. And while the devil will be in the details, and this has to be done right, a proposal from Reps. Robin Vos, Gary Tauchen and Paul Farrow at least offers a starting point.

Wisconsin was host to a record number of recall elections this summer, all stemming from the controversy surrounding Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-repair and budget bills earlier this year. Six Republicans and three Democrats were the subjects of recalls – the Republicans generally because they had favored Walker’s proposals, the Democrats generally because they had left the state to delay action on the proposals.

The recalls were unwarranted. A vote or stance on one issue is not sufficient in our view to justify the expense of a recall election. And they were expensive: The elections cost the state and local governments $2.1 million; the opposing sides in those campaigns spent a record $44 million, with Democrats and their allies outspending Republicans by just under $3 million, or about 14%.

Wisconsin: Republican State Representative Robin Vos proposes change in recall laws | WITI

Republican State Representative Robin Vos wants to change the state constitution so that a summer of political turmoil like the one we just had could never happen again.

The epic showdowns over collective bargaining, and the budget spurred a series of summer recall elections. State Democrats picked up two senate seats, but failed to change the balance of power. Under Rep. Vos’s proposal, a recall could only happen if a lawmaker were to commit a felony or an ethics violation. He says, “All we’re saying is you have to have committed a breach of trust, not a difference of opinion.”

Arizona: Author of illegal immigration law to face recall election | latimes.com

An Arizona lawmaker best known as the author of a controversial law that cracks down on illegal immigrants will face a recall election Nov. 8.  In a ruling Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court gave the go-ahead for the recall election of Russell Pearce, the president of the state Senate and arguably the most powerful politician in the Arizona.

Supporters describe Pearce, a former sheriff’s deputy, as a principled lawmaker trying to protect his state; critics say he panders to racism and demonizes immigrants, legal and illegal.

The justices held a closed-door conference on an appeal from a Pearce supporter who alleged that because of flawed paperwork, the recall drive did not amass enough valid voter signatures to force the recall election in the lawmaker’s district in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa.

Arizona: State Supreme Court to consider appeal on challenge to recall election for legislative leader | The Republic

The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to consider whether to allow a Nov. 8 recall election to be held for state Senate President Russell Pearce, a Republican known nationally for championing legislation against illegal immigration.

A Pearce supporter appealed a trial judge’s Aug. 12 ruling that denied the supporter’s request to call off the election in Pearce’s legislative district in Mesa, a Phoenix suburb.

Colorado: Judge rules Secretary of State has access to election ballots; recall of Saguache County Clerk initiated | Crestone Eagle

According to District Judge Martin Gonzales, Saguache County Clerk Melinda Myers must allow Secretary of State Scott Gessler to have access to Saguache County’s voted ballots from the November 2010 election. 31. He plans to recount them the end of August. As promised prior to the hearing, Myers has agreed to follow the Judge’s ruling and turn over ballots.

But even as the Clerk and Commissioners sought clarity on the ballot issue, a group of citizens calling themselves the Committee to Recall Melinda Myers as County Clerk and Recorder continue to gather signatures on a recall petition. They hope to put the recall on the ballot in a special election, probably after the November 2011 regular election.

The controversy over the County Clerk stems from the November 2010 vote count, where a discrepancy was found between the first vote count, which was made on election night, and another vote count done on November 5.