ACLU Concerned About Petition Database
Is this a legitimate concern?
MILWAUKEE—The American Civil Liberties Union is raising a concern with the ongoing recall petition verification process in Madison, saying that it could potentially jeopardize domestic violence and stalking victims.
Stalking and domestic violence victims can fill out a form to be put on a confidential voting list, where their name and address isn’t disclosed. However, there is no such list for the recall petitions, and the ACLU is raising concerns about the risks of a searchable database of people who signed the petitions.
While it’s certainly a valid concern, the public interest in having the names public and searchable outweighs the risk.
I can see how that would be a problem. Privacy is why I never sign petitions, nomination papers, or anything else that might become public. It’s a choice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 0933 hrs
Oh for God’s sake…this is just another weak argument to conceal potential fraud. Let’s play the “victimized female” card, since all of our race cards are currently being used for the Voter ID law.
I’m sorry, but if someone is so concerned about their personal information being made public, then don’t sign the freaking petition!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 0943 hrs
Last time I checked, the people hurling death threats, acting like psycho paths, would be the protesters trying to recall Gov. Walker, not those who support him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1004 hrs
If you want Walker out, the price you have to pay is publicly signing your name to a recall petition. It is what it is. Otherwise wait until November 2014.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone though. By any means necessary to get this done.
Please just nominate Kathleen Falk. A haggy old Madison based union liberal will be a fitting contrast. Those are the people who want Walker out. Let them have their candidate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1127 hrs
You are missing the big picture here. There were over a million signatures, in order to defeat the recall petition more than one in every three signatures needs to be tossed. Given the political rallies in Madison last March and the massive number of volunteers, there is every reason to expect that there are a sufficient number of signatures. Unless Walker can show in the next 31 days that there was massive fraud there should be a recall election.
The Waukesha judge’s decision and the GAB’s request for more time are stalling tactics. The recall law clearly puts the onus on Walker to show that the signatures are not valid. The writers of the legislature could have prescribed stricter rules for verifying signatures but they did not. Given that a recall is a massive undertaking requiring substantial effort and that a recall is not an election there is no need for such a strict verification process. The decision of the Waukesha judge was more legislation from the bench and an abuse of power.
Walker is a crook and there is no reason to support him. I collected signatures with the democrats and I will vote for whoever runs against Walker. If somehow that candidate is worse, then I will go out and collect signatures with the Republicans. We need to work together instead of wasting time defending Walker and Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1200 hrs
Defending Walker and Obama? Really?
One dude has run our future into the hands of China by spending and borrowing trillions we don’t have while regulating business out of existence.
The other guy, Walker, is the only adult in the room. The only politician on either side of the aisle who has taken a huge budget deficit and pointed out that government worker labor costs drive everything. He cut spending on government labor by a reasonable couple percentage points in the form of benefits. No one got laid off. Budget issue solved. People get to keep more of their take home pay with stable taxes.
People around the country clamor for the past decade for “Adult leadership.”. They got it with Scott Walker. Each month that passes, more and more people realize this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1207 hrs
I honestly don’t remember…What was the ACLU’s stance a few years back when all the newspapers were publishing the names and address’s of CCW holders in various cities?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1214 hrs
Bret,
We need to work together, huh? Just like Doyle did with the Republicans…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1224 hrs
Steve:
Walker’s political entourage is enveloped in a miasma of scandal, a former top lieutenant of Walker’s has been accused of embezzlement, the FBI raided the home of a former Walker aid, there is an infamous recording with a Koch impersonator, and a shadowy network of political contributors in wake. Walker is a part of ALEC – American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of private corporate interests which write bills for their own purposes. ALEC then passes those bills to governors and congressmen, whose campaigns they have financially supported, to introduce them into the legislature.Saying that no one got laid off is simply not true. Slinger School District fired their custodial staff at the end of the last school year. They were replaced by a private organization and now the new custodians earn even less, while a middleman pockets what were formerly wages. Kewaskum will probably do the same at the end of this year with their custodians who are currently under contract. The budget in Kewaskum is tight because of a new sewage treatment plant and a TIFF on a real estate development that went under.
The budget is not the fault of custodians but without collective bargaining rights what can they do? You say that we have to do something about the budget, but why should a custodian lose his job to pay for TIFF so that the bank does not lose out on profits?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1234 hrs
Xranger- The ACLU is against the publishing of names of concealed carry permit holders.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1308 hrs
Bret, I believe the “middle-man” who is now pocketing those custodian’s wages are us, the Washington County taxpayers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1310 hrs
Steve as much as I would like to continue this we are getting to far away from the topic at hand. Signatures should be public but not searchable. We should not waste money creating a database when it’s clear there are enough signatures.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1327 hrs
I’m leery about publishing the names. Remember California and the gay marriage vote? That was ugly. All it takes is one idiot.. Just sayin’..
Posted by Billiam on January 22, 2012 at 1431 hrs
A victim of domestic violence not having his/her name disclosed for fear of his/her life is an interest that VASTLY outweighs any need to have that person’s signature verified. I honestly can’t believe you made that argument, Owen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1600 hrs
Bret - the same rationale would say that since we knew that Walker was going to win the last election, we shouldn’t have bothered wasting our money to count the votes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 1838 hrs
Not sure how it works in WI, but in the Twin Cities and surrounding areas, any person who has been the victim of domestic violence has the option of having their legal adress listed as a state government office, all mail goes to a box at that address, driver’s license, voter registration etc.
Can someone find out if this is an option for Wisonsinites as well?
If it is, then the ‘problem’ is non-existent
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 2151 hrs
Not sure how it works in WI, but in the Twin Cities and surrounding areas, any person who has been the victim of domestic violence has the option of having their legal adress listed as a state government office, all mail goes to a box at that address, driver’s license, voter registration etc. Can someone find out if this is an option for Wisonsinites as well?
It’s not. Elovrich is referring to the Safe at Home program. It’s very interesting.
Q: What does a Safe at Home address look like?
A: All Safe at Home participants share the same post office box, but each household is assigned a unique lot number. Occasionally, different adults within the same household will be assigned different lot numbers. A Safe at Home address is not complete without the lot number. A Safe at Home address looks like:Participant’s Name
Lot ###
PO Box 17370
Saint Paul, MN 55117-0370Every Safe at Home address is a Saint Paul address, no matter where a participant lives in Minnesota. The only Safe at Home post office box is the one indicated above.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2012 at 2241 hrs
” We should not waste money creating a database when it’s clear there are enough signatures”
How is it clear that there are enough signatures if they are not checked? Did people have to show ID when they signed? No
How do you know someone did not just take names out of the phone book and sign them? One loyalist said he signed 80 times. I want to see the list to be sure no one signed my name for me.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2012 at 0530 hrs
Since supporters claim there are one million signatures, so many more than necessary that we shouldn’t waste time and money to verify any of them, I propose a solution:
If, for any reason at all, you do not want your name and address to appear in this search-able database, you should be able to request that your entry on these recall petitions be blacked out and not counted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2012 at 1117 hrs
Bret, there were clearly enough votes to get Walker elected too, why can’t we go with that? How is something like this public, but not searchable?
VAPolitico, are you suggesting that it is likely that someone will be beaten, maimed or killed if their name is found on the recall list? Some man is so controlling that he beats his partner(or neighbor?) for ‘thinking’ the wrong way, and he has forbidden them from voting (or signing recalls)? Sorry, but if that isn’t far fetched in any given situation, the lifespan of the victim is already a short foregone conclusion anyway. I would bet that most every acquaintance of every politically concerned (less than 60% normally vote in the first place) citizen already knows the bent of that citizen. Why ever would someone else’s name on the list be a catalyst for violence…and nothing else. Give me a break.
A friend of mine signed Bugs Bunny and was really pissed when he heard they might count it. I will make sure my name is not on the list and if it is searchable, I will look to see if the family members I expect to be on there are on there, for the fun of it, but it won’t even likely be a source of conversation. It just seems if there is a crazy that takes action from the public signatures, he would have found another way anyway. This is something no one should be ashamed to have done. If it were something I agreed with I would be proud to have served my State by signing it. I agree with MikeinGrafton, you don’t want it on there for any reason, take it off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2012 at 1345 hrs
This thread is getting length and it is becoming difficult to make sense of it all. People are responding to the latest post without taking it in the context of the previous posts.
It seems reasonable to me that testing a random sample should be a sufficient verifying method. Scan the petitions for public record but do not create a data base as this is an unnecessary expense.
Remember this is a recall not an election and therefore does not require the same scrutiny that an election does.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2012 at 1442 hrs
Remember this is a recall not an election and therefore does not require the same scrutiny that an election does.
Really? So it should be easier to circumvent a duly elected official than to elect them in the first place? To me that seems like a really short-sighted, self-serving view and a really bad precedent to set. Getting people out of an elected office should require tighter scrutiny than getting them in.
This thread is getting length and it is becoming difficult to make sense of it all. People are responding to the latest post without taking it in the context of the previous posts.
Could you give me an example? I thought I was following the comment thread pretty well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2012 at 1023 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134019
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 10:54 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 11:40 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).