GAB Conceals Walker Petitions in Blatant Partisan Act
This is ridiculous.
Madison - State election officials put off making recall petitions available publicly on Monday after hearing privacy concerns from people who signed them.
The state Government Accountability Board provided copies of the petitions against Gov. Scott Walker to Walker’s campaign on Friday and had said that it planned to post copies of them on its website on Monday. But agency spokesman Reid Magney said the board was holding off on posting them online after hearing concerns about a stalking victim and others who did not want their names released.
Recall petitions have always been public documents. Even the GAB released the petitions for senators last year and this year. But now they appear to be stalling public disclosure. Liberal Bill Lueders is right:
Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, said that the petitions should be public and that he expected that they would be made public either by the accountability board or an outside group. Lueders said signing a recall petition was a public act like signing a nomination signature for a candidate, not a private act such as voting.
“You can’t sign a petition to recall an elected public official in secret,” Lueders said.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… disband the GAB. Start over. And next time, don’t staff it with the same people who failed at the previous iteration.
I don’t recall the GAB being concerned when people who signed the recall for Dave Hansen got harassing and threatening phone calls.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2012 at 2052 hrs
There’s a difference between public documents and online documents. Posting them online is not required and will not make them public—because they already are public, not only accessible at the GAB office but also at almost a dozen sites around the state, as Walker was given the petitions last week by the GAB. So you can see them at the Walker office near you—and you even can help the volunteers checking them, too.
Democracy isn’t supposed to be easy, something anyone can do in their pajamas in the basement at mom’s computer. A lot of citizens went out into the cold for months to get signatures, so it’s comparatively easy to go to a warm office to see them.
Also: The GAB chairman is a Republican judge, just as last year’s GAB chairman was a Republican judge, still on the board, which has a Republican majority. Why not trust them to do the right thing—following the law, not expanding it? That the GAB exceeded requirements of the law in the past is no reason to push for the board to become activist judges now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0149 hrs
If someone does not want their name made public on the recall petition then they should be allowed to remove their name from the petition.
Remove it and don’t count it.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0600 hrs
Here’s what will happen: a GOP-leaning group will do an open records request on the GAB for all the petitions, and then post them to their own Web site. But yea, the GAB is a joke.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0636 hrs
Gee up there sure likes him some partisan double standards.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0651 hrs
No, nobody; I like me a single standard: the law regarding public records, the GAB, and recalls. It’s not that hard to like the law, regardless of what you read in the news on some “lawmakers.”
Of course, you are correct that the law requires that the GAB be nonpartisan. So there must be some Democratic judges on the board, too. But the Republican majority will manage this just fine; they have good and respected judicial minds among them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0709 hrs
Such bs. I never heard of any privacy concerns from the GAB before now? Why now? is it because they’re happy to enable cheating?
As for “good” and “respected”...you’re joking right? Nobody respects those asses.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0714 hrs
Gee up there sure likes him some partisan double standards.
I wonder how Mr. Gee feels about all the little twerps sitting in their mom’s basement reading about all the divorces on CCAP; I wonder how he feels about all the ChiComms and Nigerians reading all that info on CCAP?
We taxpayers plunk down a lot of loot to maintain and operate CCAP, and we’re now letting scammers use it for free!
Like Mr. Gee says, he believes in one standard - the one that suits him at any given time. So do I: If someone personally signed a public document (even if they signed it 80 times and doesn’t want to look like a fool) their signature is public.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0818 hrs
Umm, Gee can you please point to where you advocated to this standard on any previous recall?
Thanks!
Posted by Fred on January 31, 2012 at 0830 hrs
If the people who signed the petition wanted their decision kept private they should have waited until the next election and used the voting booth.
Comment at JSOnline. One of the few good ones.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0835 hrs
Comment I heard. This is what democracy looks like- you just are not allowed to see it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0851 hrs
The GAB consists of 5 Doyle appointees and 1 Walker appointee. Gee- where do you get the idea it has a Republican majority?
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Wisconsin_Government_Accountability_Board
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0855 hrs
If it wasn’t for double standards, leftists would have no standards at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 0946 hrs
I’m anxiously waiting Gee’s response to being called out on the lies about the GAB makeup.
And just to prove the point, it bears repeating with links:
The GAB released the petitions for the 2011 Senate Recalls (click on the recall committee name for PDFs of the petitions and the 2012 Senate Recalls.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1104 hrs
Yes, I don’t remember hearing the outrage about privacy last spring.
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 31, 2012 at 1119 hrs
Huh, and isn’t this interesting? Conservative group says signers of petitions to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker are at risk
Media Trackers said recall petition signers are vulnerable to crime or harassment because of two newly discovered provisions in Wisconsin’s recall process.
Neither provision is new, so it’s misleading to call them newly discovered. As for the risk to petition signers, Media Trackers provided no evidence that they have been victims of crime, although some have received phone calls from out-of-state telemarketers in the past.
We rate Media Trackers’ statement Mostly False.
Huh.
So if conservatives raise concerns = pfffttt, you’re overreacting
If liberals raise concerns = yes, you’re completely right, legitimate
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 31, 2012 at 1125 hrs
So what is one to make of this bit of news?
Recall petitions delivered to Gov. Scott Walker
H/T Cindy Kilkenny
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1137 hrs
From the article (emphasis mine):
Wisconsin elections officials say they have delivered electronic copies to Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign
Not news—his campaign gets to review and challenge signatures. State law.
(Nice bias on the Press-Gazette’s part, suggesting that Gov. Walker has the originals. ::rolleyes:: )
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 31, 2012 at 1143 hrs
Regarding the Republicans on the board, I looked up its membership and then looked up each member. You can do it, too, and see if you find differently than I did. I found information that at lest four of the six are Republicans, including the recent chair, the fine Judge Tom Barland, and the current chair, Judge David Deininger.
As for other replies above that misstate my first comment, just reread my first comment. It stands; your misstating it, or my repeating it, won’t make me wrong, and it won’t make you right. You can look up the law, as I did, too, and learn the differences in the terms that you’re misusing here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1155 hrs
Double standards, thy name is Liberals.
Hey, if you don’t want your name and address public, try not signing any public documents and including your address.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1207 hrs
and hsgyournameistoolongtobotherwith,
It’s funny how those concerns were shushed during the last recalls, huh? Wonder why they aren’t now?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1209 hrs
The GAB would be publishing what kind of copies online if not electronic?
Why isn’t the Walker Campaign publishing these docs online and/or sharing them with interested parties?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1217 hrs
I don’t know they have the authority to do that—and can you imagine the outrage if they did? Double standards, they name is Liberals.
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 31, 2012 at 1255 hrs
Hey, I can’t help it if you liberals are lying cheaters, can I?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1308 hrs
I don’t see the harm in taking the extra time in offering an option to have your address obscured (not your name) from a searchable online database. But, I think they HAVE to be left in the official documents available by a FOI request.
If there are REALLY concerns about it, then fine. But, it should be a new standard that we use from now on. Just like posting them online, we have the technology to do it so why not accomodate. A simple online form or a phone number to request your address be removed.
No reason that someone should be left out of the democratic process because they fear for their safety. And I will bet that 99% of the people that signed these documents did not KNOW that their names and addresses would be put online & easily searchable for the world to see.
If you really want to look like jackasses then go ahead and continue to show zero sympathy for the people in fear of domestic violence and the fact that they signed the document. That is a great way to endear yourselves to the general public. Because whether true or not, that is how it will be portrayed by the media and the left.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1324 hrs
GMan, I am a conservative FTR.
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 31, 2012 at 1342 hrs
continue to show zero sympathy for the people in fear of domestic violence and the fact that they signed the document
Who’s saying this?
What we are asking is where was all the concern last spring? Where was the concern when petition signers were being called, and in some cases, harassed by the callers? Why the concern now?
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 31, 2012 at 1344 hrs
@hsgbdmama Like I said, “True or Not”. But that is what is going to be portrayed. I don’t recall where I heard that argument about the domestic violence concern, if it was in an article referencing the ACLU or not.
There apparently wasn’t the outcry last spring. I don’t think it is any more or less legit, but the outcry wasn’t there. Sometimes it just takes a VERY “squeaky wheel”. Harassment should never be tolerated. But, if there was a problem last spring, why was there no motion to get it changed after it happened? And one of the reasons that there is an “outcry” now is the sheer volume of signatures and people’s information.
Does it suck? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes, a little. But why not fix it while the problem is in front of us? Why wait until after the fact when no one is thinking of the problem and we have 100 new issues in front of us to address.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1402 hrs
23.I don’t know they have the authority to do that—and can you imagine the outrage if they did?
That’s curious, I thought this was info that is already considered part of the public domain, what authority would they need?
Could it relly be about furthering some other agenda?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1612 hrs
Done deal.
Have fun:)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1738 hrs
Just for the record, I have no problems with the GAB posting scans of all the documents without erasing any addresses. This is why I specified a “searchable database” in my earlier comment.
If someone wants to go through the thousands of pages looking for a single name that may or may not be there, odds are they will have exhausted other means to find said person.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2012 at 1912 hrs
F or O,
There is a different between an electronic copy (e.g. a scan) and placing the information in a database. If the GAB has a database, which they stated they were creating, that database is a public record and should be released. Yes, the Walker effort can also put this information in a database but that is not the public record and could not be treated as such.
FYI - your name does not make sense. It is not like apples or oranges; two different kinds of fruit. It is more like apples of cars. People often say “stating a fact” or “stating an opinion”. Facts are not statements. Statement are true if they accurately represent the fact. Opinions can be true or false based on how accurately they represent the fact. The sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees is my opinion, it is true but my statement is not a fact. The fact is the reality of the triangular construction.
IMHO
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2012 at 0607 hrs
What the GAB provided is the raw database. I like my FOIA requests answered raw, unrefined and unredacted.
Transposing the information from one form into another creates an opportunity for error and mischief.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2012 at 0903 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134035
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:52 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 95
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 10:23 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).