Home / News Features /  Incompetence or Fraud?
  Share
Wednesday, April 13,2011

Incompetence or Fraud?

Making sense of Waukesha County clerk's election story

By Lisa Kaiser
 
Is Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus incompetent or part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to secure state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser's re-election?

The official story is that Nickolaus caught a reporting error made on election night, corrected the mistake during the official vote canvass, then broke the news with an apology at a press conference on Thursday, two days after the mistake was made.

Nickolaus blamed the mix-up on "human error," her failure to save the city of Brookfield's vote tallies in her Microsoft Access database. Nickolaus then released the Waukesha County numbers to the press—minus Brookfield's—which were then reported as the unofficial April 5 vote tally.

That sounds entirely plausible.

But others are still having a hard time believing Nickolaus' version of events. Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison) and Citizen Action of Wisconsin have asked for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to launch a federal investigation into potential election fraud. Waukesha County Democratic Party Chair Victor Weers has asked Nickolaus to resign. The state Government Accountability Board (GAB) is investigating Nickolaus' election-night actions. One Wisconsin Now has eagerly noted her partisan background. Even the lone Democrat on the county's canvassing board, Ramona Kitzinger, who said at the Thursday night press conference that the numbers "jibed," is now saying that she's confused about what actually happened as the Waukesha County votes were certified.

Nickolaus did not respond to the Shepherd's request for comment on last week's vote tally.

So what really happened in Waukesha?

The Count

The city of Brookfield clerk said she sent over its vote totals to Nickolaus on Tuesday night showing that 14,315 votes had been cast. Of those, Prosser had won 10,859 while his challenger, Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, won 3,456 votes. The clerk also reported those numbers to a local blog, which posted them on Tuesday night.

Nickolaus stated on Thursday that she had entered those numbers into her Microsoft Access database but failed to save them after they were entered. She said she unknowingly released the Brookfield-less Waukesha results to the Associated Press.

Nickolaus said she realized her mistake during the post-election canvass, added in the Brookfield vote tallies, certified the numbers, then called the press conference.

But that version of events is being challenged.

On Monday, Government Accountability Board (GAB) spokesman Reid Magney said state investigators will return to Waukesha this week to continue looking into the error. Magney said the investigation has two parts. First, the GAB will ensure that the county's numbers match the numbers that were reported by the individual polling places on election night, as well as protect the ballots in the event of a recount. The second part of the investigation will review Nickolaus' election-night practices. Magney said that most county clerks have a process in place—for example, using a blackboard or bulletin board or computer program—to show which municipalities within the county have reported their results.

But Nickolaus only releases the countywide totals for each of the races on the April 5 ballot.

"Had she reported for each municipality, people would have noticed that Brookfield was not in there," Magney said.

He said that there is nothing in the law that requires her to report separate results, but that the GAB would review her election-night practices and make some recommendations.

State Department of Justice spokesman William Cosh said that the department would only get involved if the GAB found evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The Canvass

Nickolaus stated in her press conference that the error was detected during the post-election vote canvass and corrected. Backing her up was Democrat Ramona Kitzinger, who's served on the county's canvassing board since 2004.

But on Monday, Kitzinger released a statement clarifying her remark that the numbers "jibed."

In her statement, Kitzinger said that the canvass began at 9 a.m. on Wednesday and "proceeded as normal, with no glaring irregularities or mention of a possible 15,000-vote error in Brookfield city." On Thursday, "the issue of minor vote corrections in New Berlin and Lisbon came up, but again nothing of a historic nature or reflecting glaring irregularities."

She said that Brookfield's results were mentioned on Thursday, but "in retrospect it seems both shocking and somewhat appalling there was no mention of discovery of this 15,000 vote 'human error' that ultimately had the potential to tip the balance of an entire statewide election."

Kitzinger said she wasn't told of the error until after the canvass was complete, the results were certified and Nickolaus had called a press conference. She said Nickolaus had showed her and the Republican observer "tapes where [the] numbers seemed to add up, though I have no idea where the numbers were coming from. I was not told of the magnitude of this error, just that she had made one."

While Kitzinger may not have known about the 14,000-vote error on Thursday afternoon, conservative bloggers had that information before the press conference. For example, Wisconsin Policy Research Institute's Christian Schneider, blogging at the National Review Online, posted the news before the press conference began, with the revised numbers of the total vote.

Nickolaus' critics have also charged that she has run sloppy, error-riddled elections in the past; was uncooperative with Waukesha County officials who wanted to ensure that her computers were secure and functioning properly; was granted immunity to testify about her role as a computer analyst for the Wisconsin Assembly Republican caucus during the partisan caucus scandals, when Prosser was the Republican Assembly majority leader; and that Microsoft Access automatically saves data after it has been entered.

"It doesn't necessarily add up to a conspiracy," said Citizen Action of Wisconsin's executive director, Robert Kraig. "It adds up to a lot of suspicious circumstances that definitely require a full independent investigation. Whether you were for Prosser or Kloppenburg or for no one, this tarnishes Wisconsin's reputation."



The Fallout

The revised numbers in Waukesha County gave Prosser an unofficial lead of roughly 7,000 votes over Kloppenburg. The GAB's Magney said the agency would not certify the election results until all official results are in and the investigation of Waukesha's results is complete.

One of the candidates may ask for a recount after the official numbers are reported. If the margin is above 0.5%, the candidate must pay for the recount.

Jay Weiner, author of This Is Not Florida: How Al Franken Won the Minnesota Senate Recount, said that a recount is highly unlikely to swing more than 7,000 votes and give the election to Kloppenburg. Weiner said no recount in recent decades has swung more than 500-600 votes in either candidate's favor. For example, in Minnesota's 2008 U.S. Senate race, Norm Coleman unofficially led by 215 votes out of 2.9 million. After a hand recount and an eight-month legal battle, Al Franken won by 312 votes. Other recounted races in Washington and New York fell within that vote margin as well.

Weiner said that if Prosser's 7,000-vote advantage holds up through the canvass process, Kloppenburg would have to ask herself if she wanted to go through with a recount that is likely unwinnable and very expensive. Coleman and Franken spent $20 million on their recount alone.

However, he said, a recount in Waukesha County may be advisable to show that the results are valid.

"I think it would be a fine idea because it would show that the election was fair," Weiner said.

Kloppenburg's campaign did not respond to the Shepherd'srequests for comment. It has submitted open records requests for material related to the Waukesha County tally.

 

POST A COMMENT
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Yes, a recount is entirely reasonable for Waukesha, or for any other county, city, ward or precinct that Kloppenburg wants recounted.  It's her right, and the "community organizers" on the liberal left will trip over themselves to pay for a recount.  Hell, Soros himself may give her the money.

But please, don't treat us like children.  Don't pretend that you (the Shepherd, the left, Kloppenburg, her laywers, the unions, and the fleabag 14) will accept the results of ANY recount.  You already have an AOL/Huffington post media property that published the correct totals ON ELECTION NIGHT.  Yet you make no mention of that, instead citing an unnamed "local blogger" who was given the incorrect totals.

I know that you see every conservative as a mouth-breathing moron, but please.  (1) You can't get comments from either campaign.  (2) The only evidence you have that there were actually discrepancies on election night is an "unnamed blogger".  (3) You won't acknowledge that there was a very liberal media outlet that published the correct totals on election night.  (4) You are OK calling the Waukesha County Democratic Party Vice Chair a "confused" woman- yet this is who was trusted to oversee the canvas.  (5) Kloppenburg has engaged Stuart Smalley's lawyers.

All of this points to one thing- the left using a mistake (a mistake in reporting vote totals to the media...WHO CARES ABOUT THE DAMN MEDIA??) to steal an election.  Where will the liberal lawyers "find" the votes this time?  The trunk of a car?  A box under a desk?  A locker at the bus station?  Can't wait to find out.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Ben

The same question posed in this headline could be asked of the Shepherd. The results were counted. They were posted on the local website and reported in the local paper (even if not tallied for the county). They were also reported to and repeated by a former Huffington Post reporter prior to their rereporting Wednesday. Is this a vast left wing conspiracy to provide cover for all of the fraud in Milwaukee and possible fraud in Madison?

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

It was an error caught when it should have been caught. The system worked. I understand some people are upset because the election did not go the way they wanted to but there is no conspiracy. 

I am more concerned about something that just happened to me in Menomonee Falls. Someone approached me asking me to sign a recall petition against Darling. When I said I did not live in the Falls I was told it "did not matter - no one is going to check anyway". I did not sign but the family next to me did - including their teenage sons. 

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Neither fraud nor incompetence.  But the actions of a very clever and cunning individual.  Kloppenberger was viewed as a naive and ineffectual politician.  The Republicans took advantage of that by suckering her into declaring victory, only to be humilated in defeat.  Let her get a taste of vicotry and then drown it out.  Reminds me of the time I got tricked into stealing base and got tagged out by the second baseman who was holding the ball the entire time.  Nickolaus had the ball in this game.

Republicans have a few dirty tricks, mostly from the Democrat playbook.  Later they sent over some "Pat" type individuals from Saturday Night Live over to the Waukesha court house and pretend they were pro Kloppenheimer protesters. This was intended to label Ms. Koppendinger as being associated with those types and stripping her of her femininity.

I'm all for winning but rubbing it in this way was going too far IMO.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

You don't have to hit "save" in Access; if I remember corretctly, it automatically keeps/saves everything,

 

 
 
Today in Milwaukee
CityGuide2012_banner_410x93_040512.jpg
SpringGuideToHigherEd2012_410x93.jpg
SAG_Click2012.jpg
Express234x120.gif

Join Us at Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Flickr


 
 
 
*/?>