Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election
← 2010 June 5, 2012 2014 →
  Scott Walker by Gage Skidmore.jpg Tom Barrett (politician).jpg
Nominee Scott Walker Tom Barrett
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 1,335,585[1] 1,164,480[1]
Percentage 53.1% 46.3%
Wisconsin Gubernatortial Election Results by County, 2012.svg
Results by county
Governor before election

Scott Walker
Republican

 Elected Governor

Scott Walker
Republican
Elections in Wisconsin
Seal of Wisconsin.svg
This box:

The 2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial election were recall elections to elect the governor and lieutenant governor of Wisconsin. It resulted in voters re-electing incumbent Republican Governor Scott Walker over the Democratic candidate Tom Barrett by a slightly larger margin than he had in 2010, in which Walker had also faced Barrett. Recall organizers opposed Walker's agenda, particularly his limiting of collective bargaining rights for state employees[2] and they collected over 900,000 signatures to initiate the recall election process.[2] There was also a recall for Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch. She won her race, defeating Democrat Mahlon Mitchell, making her the first lieutenant governor to run in and survive a recall.[3]

The Democratic primaries took place on May 8. The recall elections were held June 5[4] with Walker defeating Barrett. Walker was thus the first U.S. governor to continue in office after facing a recall election.[5]

Four state senate recall elections took place the same day as the gubernatorial recall elections, resulting in two wins by Republican incumbents, one open seat win by a Republican, and one win by a Democratic challenger, giving Democrats control of the state Senate.[6]

The recall election was just the third gubernatorial recall election in U.S. history and the only one in which the incumbent was not defeated.[7] The other governors who were subject to a recall election were Lynn Frazier of North Dakota (1921) and Gray Davis of California (2003).

Voter turnout in the election was 57.8 percent, the highest for a gubernatorial election not on a presidential ballot in Wisconsin history.[8] The election was widely covered on national television.

Background

Pre-certification recall campaign

Protests in the Capitol, February 14, 2012

Incumbent Republican Governor Scott Walker faced a recall effort beginning in November 2011. After the contentious collective bargaining dispute,[9] Walker's disapproval ratings varied between 50 and 51% while his approval ratings varied between 47% and 49% in 2011.[10][11]

Wisconsin law made Walker ineligible for recall until at least January 3, 2012, one year after he first took office, and the Wisconsin Democratic Party called it a "priority" to remove him from office.[12]

In the first half of 2011, Walker raised more than $2,500,000 from supporters.[13][14] Walker raised $5.1 million in the second half of 2011 to battle his recall, "almost half of it from out of state."[15] The effort to recall Walker officially began on November 15, 2011.[16]

In less than half of the allotted time (60 days) to collect signatures, recall organizers report collecting more than 500,000 signatures, leaving roughly one month left to collect the remaining 40,000 signatures needed to force a recall vote. On January 17, 2012, United Wisconsin, the coalition that spearheaded the recall effort, along with the Democratic Party, said that one million signatures were collected, which far exceeded the 540,208 needed, and amounted to 23 percent of the state's eligible voters, 46 percent of the total votes cast in the 2010 gubernatorial election and just shy of the 1.1 million votes earned by Walker.[17]

On January 25, 2012, a poll released by the Marquette University Law School predicted that Walker would win a recall election against potential candidates Tom Barrett, Kathleen Falk, David Obey or Tim Cullen.[18][19] This compared to a poll released by Public Policy Polling in October 2011 that also predicted Walker would win a recall election against Barrett, Falk, Peter Barca, Steve Kagen or Ron Kind. The poll also showed that more people opposed (49%) than supported (48%) the recall effort.[20]

In February 2012, Walker's campaign made an additional request for more time for the petition signatures to be verified, stating that between 10–20% of the signatures reviewed to that point should not be counted. Democrats argued that even if 20% of the signatures were not counted there were still 300,000 more than the required number needed to initiate the recall. Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski argued Walker was just "delaying the inevitable." Additionally, in the period while signatures were being verified Walker was able to collect unlimited campaign donations because normal campaign fundraising limits do not apply until an election is ordered.[21] On February 17, 2012, Dane County judge Richard Niess denied Walker's request for additional time.[22]

In March Milwaukee city officials asked Milwaukee Public Schools to contribute nearly $10 million more to the pension plan because of financial market downturns. The teachers' union, school board and the superintendent asked the Legislature for the opportunity to negotiate to reduce costs.[23] Milwaukee schools didn't take part in a 90-day window that had since closed, which allowed unions and municipal employees to make contract adjustments. The Assembly and Senate agreed to allow Milwaukee schools to reopen negotiations for compensation or fringe-benefit concessions without nullifying existing union contracts. The measure giving them 90 days passed the Assembly and Senate. Governor Scott Walker supported the measure. Other teachers' unions asked Milwaukee to withdraw its request, saying it would give Walker a political advantage in the recall election.[24]

Certification

On March 29, 2012, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board released its final signature counts for the Walker recall petition. The GAB reported that 931,053 signatures were officially turned in, although the proponents had stated that approximately one million signatures were collected. Of that number, 26,114 were struck by GAB staff for various reasons and an additional 4,001 duplicates were struck. The final total certified by the GAB was 900,938 signatures.[25]

Controversy over recall petitions signed by Wisconsin judges and journalists

Twenty-nine circuit court judges in Wisconsin signed recall petitions against Gov. Walker, according to a Gannett Wisconsin Media analysis.[26] Among the signers was Dane County Judge David Flanagan, who was scrutinized after issuing a temporary restraining order March 6 against a Walker-backed voter ID law without disclosing his support of the recall.[27] None of the state's sixteen appeals court judges or seven Supreme Court justices signed the recall petition. The state Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion in 2001 saying judges are allowed to sign nominating petitions, as long as the petition language only supports putting the candidate on the ballot and does not imply an endorsement.[26] The Landmark Legal Foundation requested an investigation to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission regarding allegations of misconduct by the judges in question.[citation needed]

It was later learned that 25 journalists at Gannett had also signed the recall petition. The newspaper group revealed the signatures in the interest of being as open as possible. Genia Lovett, representative for the organization, stated that journalists have a right to hold opinions, but must protect the credibility of their respective news organizations.[28]

Other media organizations had staff who signed the recall petition.[29] Rob Starbuck, the morning news anchor for Madison, Wisconsin television station WISC-TV, signed the Walker recall petition. The station stated that the signing was in violation of the station's policy for newsroom employees. Television stations WISN, WTMJ, WITI, WDJT and radio station WTMJ in Milwaukee discovered that some staff members signed petitions to recall Walker. Some employees at WTMJ claimed signing the recall petition was not a political act, but rather, similar to casting a vote. WTMJ stated it did not agree and indicated they would take measures to make sure their reporting was fair and balanced, and to ensure no future similar controversies. The WITI television journalist who had signed the petition was reassigned and prohibited from covering Walker-related stories. [30][31]

The cost of the recall election had also drawn criticism. An estimate provided by the state Government Accountability Board showed a cost of $9 million for a statewide election. Since a primary election was also conducted for this race, Representative Robin Vos estimated the cost would be double, around $18 million.[32]

Results of the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Primary on May 8, 2012. Red counties had more votes for Walker than all Democrats combined. Blue counties had more votes for all Democrats combined than Walker.

Costs & spending

The recall elections were the most expensive elections in Wisconsin history.[33] According to the advocacy group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, candidates and outside groups spent more than $80 million in the governor's recall race. This compares to $37.4 million spent on the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial election.[34]

According to USA Today, "More than $62 million was spent by the candidates and outside groups. Much of the $30 million raised by Walker came from outside the state. Barrett ... spent about $4 million; most of his donors live in Wisconsin."[35] Barrett also benefited from spending by labor unions throughout the recall, estimated at another $20 million.[citation needed] Kathleen Falk, who was defeated by Barrett in the Democratic primary raised about $5.2 million from public-sector unions inside and outside the state. The cost of the recall elections for the governor and lieutenant governor to Wisconsin taxpayers was $18 million.[34]

Republican primary

Candidates

  • Scott Walker, incumbent governor and former Milwaukee County executive
  • Arthur Kohl-Riggs (political activist)[36]

Endorsements

Results

Republican primary results[66]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Scott Walker 626,538 97
Republican Arthur Kohl-Riggs 19,920 3
Total votes 646,458 100

Democratic primary

Candidates

Declined

The following people were subject to significant rumor or speculation that they would run, but ultimately decided not to be candidates in the recall election.

Endorsements

Polling

Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Tom
Barrett		 Kathleen
Falk		 Doug
La Follette		 Kathleen
Vinehout		 Undecided
Marquette University April 26–29, 2012 451 ± 4% 48% 21% 8% 6% 19%
Public Policy Polling April 13–15, 2012 810 ± 3.4% 38% 24% 9% 6% 22%
Marquette University March 22–25, 2012 373 ± 5.1% — 54% 15% 12% 19%
36% 29% 8% 8% 18%
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 425 45% 18% 14% 6% 17%
— 41% 23% 13% 22%

Results

Democratic primary results[66]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Tom Barrett 390,109 58
Democratic Kathleen Falk 228,940 34
Democratic Kathleen Vinehout 26,926 4
Democratic Douglas La Follette 19,461 3
Democratic Gladys Huber 4,842 1
Total votes 670,278 100

Candidates

Campaign

In April the Milwaukee Police Association and Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association unions endorsed Governor Walker in the recall election.[101] After Barrett won the Democratic primary, Walker stated, "As Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett enters the general election in his soon to be third statewide losing campaign, he will surely find that his record of raising taxes and promises to continue to do so will not resonate with voters."[102] After his primary victory Barrett said, "We cannot fix Wisconsin with Walker as governor, this election is not about fighting past battles, it is about moving forward together to create jobs and get our economy moving again."[103]

Debates

Opinion polls

Key
DV Decided voters
LV Likely voters
RV Registered voters
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Tom
Barrett (D)		 Other Undecided
We Ask America June 3, 2012 1,570 LV ± 2.5% 54% 42% — 4%
Public Policy Polling June 2–3, 2012 1,226 LV ± 2.8% 50% 47% — 3%
Angus Reid Public Opinion May 30 – June 2, 2012 507 DV ± 4.4% 53% 47% — —
Marquette University May 23–26, 2012 600 LV ± 4.1% 52% 45% — 3%
We Ask America May 23, 2012 1,409 LV ± 2.61% 54% 42% — 4%
St. Norbert College May 17–22, 2012 406 LV ± 5% 50% 45% — 5%
Reason-Rupe May 14–18, 2012 609 LV ± 4% 50% 42% — 6%
We Ask America May 13, 2012 1,219 LV ± 2.81% 52% 43% — 5%
Public Policy Polling May 11–13, 2012 833 LV ± 3.4% 50% 45% 2% 3%
Marquette University May 9–12, 2012 600 LV ± 4.1% 50% 44% — 3%
Rasmussen Reports May 9, 2012 500 LV ± 4.5% 50% 45% 2% 2%
Marquette University April 26–29, 2012 705 RV ± 4% 46% 47% 3% 4%
628 LV 47% 46% 3% 4%
Public Policy Polling April 13–15, 2012 1,136 ± 2.9% 50% 45% 2% 3%
Marquette University March 22–25, 2012 707 ± 3.7% 47% 45% 3% 5%
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 900 ± 3.3% 46% 49% — 5%
Marquette University January 19–22, 2012 701 ± 3.7% 50% 44% 2% 4%
Public Policy Polling October 20–23, 2011 1,170 ± 2.9% 48% 46% — 6%

<templatestyles src="Template:Hidden begin/styles.css"/>

Hypothetical polling
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Democrat Other Undecided
Marist March 26–27, 2012 2,792 ± 1.9% 46% 48% — 6%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Kathleen
Falk (D)		 Other Undecided
Marquette University April 26–29, 2012 705 ± 4% 49% 42% 6% 3%
Public Policy Polling April 13–15, 2012 1136 ± 2.9% 50% 43% 3% 3%
Marquette University March 22–25, 2012 707 ± 3.7% 49% 45% 2% 5%
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 900 ± 3.3% 47% 48% — 5%
Marquette University January 19–22, 2012 701 ± 3.7% 49% 42% 2% 6%
Public Policy Polling October 20–23, 2011 1,170 ± 2.9% 49% 41% — 10%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Doug
LaFollette (D)		 Other Undecided
Marquette University April 26–29, 2012 705 ± 4% 49% 40% 7% 4%
Public Policy Polling April 13–15, 2012 1136 ± 2.9% 51% 40% 3% 6%
Marquette University March 22–25, 2012 707 ± 3.7% 49% 42% 3% 6%
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 900 ± 3.3% 46% 45% — 9%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Kathleen
Vinehout (D)		 Other Undecided
Marquette University April 26–29, 2012 705 ± 4% 49% 40% 6% 5%
Public Policy Polling April 13–15, 2012 1136 ± 2.9% 50% 38% 5% 7%
Marquette University March 22–25, 2012 707 ± 3.7% 49% 41% 3% 6%
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 900 ± 3.3% 46% 44% — 10%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Peter
Barca (D)		 Other Undecided
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 900 ± 3.3% 48% 46% — 7%
Public Policy Polling October 20–23, 2011 1,170 ± 2.9% 48% 42% — 10%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Tim
Cullen (D)		 Other Undecided
Marquette University January 19–22, 2012 701 ± 3.7% 50% 40% 3% 7%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Jon
Erpenbach (D)		 Other Undecided
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 900 ± 3.3% 47% 44% — 9%
Public Policy Polling October 20–23, 2011 1,170 ± 2.9% 47% 40% — 13%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Russ
Feingold (D)		 Other Undecided
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 900 ± 3.3% 45% 52% — 4%
Public Policy Polling October 20–23, 2011 1,170 ± 2.9% 46% 49% — 5%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Steve
Kagen (D)		 Other Undecided
Public Policy Polling October 20–23, 2011 1,170 ± 2.9% 47% 39% — 14%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 Ron
Kind (D)		 Other Undecided
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 900 ± 3.3% 45% 46% — 9%
Public Policy Polling October 20–23, 2011 1,170 ± 2.9% 47% 41% — 12%
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size		 Margin of
error		 Scott
Walker (R)		 David
Obey (D)		 Other Undecided
Public Policy Polling February 23–26, 2012 900 ± 3.3% 47% 45% — 7%
Marquette University January 19–22, 2012 701 ± 3.7% 49% 43% 3% 6%
Public Policy Polling October 20–23, 2011 1,170 ± 2.9% 47% 42% — 10%

Results

Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 results[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Scott Walker (Incumbent) 1,335,585 53.1
Democratic Tom Barrett 1,164,480 46.3
Independent Hariprasad Trivedi 14,463 0.6
Total votes 2,514,528 100.0
Republican hold
Wisconsin lieutenant governor recall election, 2012 results[105]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Rebecca Kleefisch (Incumbent) 1,301,739 52.9
Democratic Mahlon Mitchell 1,156,520 47.1
Total votes 2,458,259 100.0
Republican hold
A county map of Wisconsin comparing Scott Walker's margins of victory in 2012 to the results in 2010. Walker did better in northern, central, and western Wisconsin, while Barrett did better in southeast Wisconsin.

County results

County Won
by		 Walker
 %		 Walker
votes		 Barrett
 %		 Barrett
votes		 Trivedi % Trivedi votes Voter turnout
Adams Walker 54.5 4,497 44.3 3,658 1.2 97 47%
Ashland Barrett 38.1 2,598 61.2 4,174 0.7 50 55%
Barron Walker 59.3 10,420 39.9 7,015 0.8 136 49%
Bayfield Barrett 39.8 3,269 59.5 4,889 0.7 55 68%
Brown Walker 59.7 61,969 39.7 41,238 0.6 619 56%
Buffalo Walker 60.8 3,403 38.4 2,148 0.8 44 53%
Burnett Walker 60.8 3,998 38.6 2,536 0.6 40 53%
Calumet Walker 66.3 15,004 33.2 7,515 0.5 107 63%
Chippewa Walker 58.3 14,877 40.8 10,419 0.9 244 54%
Clark Walker 68.7 8,133 30.5 3,618 0.8 86 48%
Columbia Barrett 49.4 12,912 50.0 13,070 0.6 161 60%
Crawford Walker 51.1 3,357 48.1 3,160 0.8 61 51%
Dane Barrett 30.4 77,595 69.1 176,407 0.5 1,239 67%
Dodge Walker 63.6 24,851 35.7 13,958 0.7 242 56%
Door Walker 56.8 8,401 42.7 6,308 0.5 75 65%
Douglas Barrett 35.0 6,374 64.4 11,711 0.6 106 52%
Dunn Walker 53.9 8,417 45.4 7,099 0.7 114 45%
Eau Claire Walker 49.8 20,740 49.4 20,595 0.8 325 54%
Florence Walker 64.8 1,338 34.7 717 0.5 10 57%
Fond du Lac Walker 63.9 29,060 35.4 16,105 0.7 309 58%
Forest Walker 58.8 2,180 40.0 1,485 1.2 44 51%
Grant Walker 52.0 9,498 47.2 8,623 0.8 137 45%
Green Walker 51.1 8,407 48.5 7,981 0.4 71 59%
Green Lake Walker 68.9 5,800 30.4 2,564 0.7 54 57%
Iowa Barrett 46.4 4,957 52.9 5,660 0.7 77 60%
Iron Walker 55.7 1,613 43.8 1,267 0.5 14 59%
Jackson Walker 53.6 4,074 45.6 3,466 0.8 62 48%
Jefferson Walker 60.0 22,475 39.2 14,698 0.8 274 59%
Juneau Walker 55.8 5,429 43.4 4,225 0.8 83 46%
Kenosha Barrett 49.1 28,935 50.3 29,638 0.6 349 48%
Kewaunee Walker 64.1 6,108 35.5 3,388 0.4 42 61%
La Crosse Barrett 47.5 22,608 51.8 24,651 0.7 382 53%
Lafayette Walker 56.7 3,887 42.6 2,923 0.7 46 55%
Langlade Walker 65.6 5,621 33.7 2,898 0.7 71 55%
Lincoln Walker 56.9 7,201 42.3 5,351 0.8 106 56%
Manitowoc Walker 64.1 23,085 35.2 12,682 0.7 268 57%
Marathon Walker 62.1 36,352 37.2 21,809 0.7 398 58%
Marinette Walker 61.9 10,267 37.6 6,242 0.5 90 50%
Marquette Walker 59.3 4,102 40.0 2,764 0.7 55 56%
Menominee Barrett 26.5 208 73.2 575 0.3 3 28%
Milwaukee Barrett 36.3 143,455 63.3 250,476 0.4 1,935 56%
Monroe Walker 59.2 9,064 39.8 6,093 1.0 155 46%
Oconto Walker 65.2 11,049 34.2 5,782 0.6 102 58%
Oneida Walker 58.1 10,433 41.0 7,365 0.9 147 61%
Outagamie Walker 61.3 47,840 38.1 29,714 0.6 466 59%
Ozaukee Walker 70.7 34,303 29.0 14,095 0.3 141 74%
Pepin Walker 60.1 1,849 39.4 1,216 0.5 17 53%
Pierce Walker 55.0 8,317 44.6 6,744 0.4 59 47%
Polk Walker 60.2 10,133 39.2 6,593 0.6 106 50%
Portage Barrett 48.3 14,846 51.0 15,672 0.7 242 55%
Price Walker 60.0 4,083 39.0 2,651 1.0 73 59%
Racine Walker 52.8 45,526 46.6 40,287 0.6 509 59%
Richland Walker 53.8 3,895 45.5 3,296 0.7 53 52%
Rock Barrett 43.5 27,498 55.8 35,316 0.7 475 53%
Rusk Walker 62.6 3,722 36.3 2,167 1.1 60 52%
Sauk Walker 51.2 13,648 48.1 12,815 0.7 168 56%
Sawyer Walker 56.5 3,999 42.8 3,038 0.7 45 54%
Shawano Walker 66.2 11,201 33.3 5,646 0.5 88 52%
Sheboygan Walker 64.3 34,047 35.2 18,612 0.5 279 60%
St. Croix Walker 61.1 20,894 38.5 13,177 0.4 124 56%
Taylor Walker 71.8 5,751 27.5 2,201 0.7 76 51%
Trempealeau Walker 57.0 6,266 42.2 4,634 0.8 88 50%
Vernon Walker 52.0 6,352 47.2 5,762 0.8 100 56%
Vilas Walker 63.3 7,300 36.1 4,154 0.6 72 65%
Walworth Walker 64.3 26,221 35.2 14,346 0.5 202 52%
Washburn Walker 57.1 4,278 42.1 3,156 0.8 59 59%
Washington Walker 75.6 52,306 24.0 16,634 0.4 246 70%
Waukesha Walker 72.4 154,316 27.3 58,234 0.3 706 72%
Waupaca Walker 64.7 14,094 34.7 7,564 0.6 128 54%
Waushara Walker 62.9 6,463 36.5 3,754 0.6 69 52%
Winnebago Walker 56.0 39,881 43.4 30,885 0.6 446 54%
Wood Walker 57.9 18,535 41.2 13,171 0.9 281 55%

Analysis

Despite the protests, which followed shortly after Walker's inauguration, Walker's margin of victory in the recall election increased by 1 percentage point compared to the previous election (6.8% vs 5.8%). Approximately 350,000 more people voted in the recall election than in the 2010 election (2.5 million vs 2.15 million), making voter turnout in the recall 57.8%, the highest for a Wisconsin gubernatorial election not on a presidential ballot. The Republican bastions of Ozaukee, Waukesha, and Washington had the highest turnouts in the state, at 74%, 72%, and 70% respectively. The Democratic bastion of Dane was not far behind, at 67% voter turnout. Menominee had the lowest turnout in the state, with only 28% voter turnout. Walker won 60 counties in the recall election, compared to 59 in 2010. 3 counties flipped from Walker to Barrett in the recall election (Colombia, Kenosha, and La Crosse), while 4 counties flipped from Barrett to Walker in the recall election (Crawford, Eau Claire, Green, and Trempealeau). Walker's margin of victory increased in 54 counties, while it decreased in 18 counties. Walker did better in most of northern Wisconsin, while Barrett did better in southeast Wisconsin and the most northern counties in the state. Twelve counties (Buffalo, Calumet, Clark, Door, Forest, Kewaunee, Outagamie, Pepin, Price, Rusk, Taylor, and Trempealeau) had swings towards Walker by six points or more compared to the last election, while six counties (Columbia, Dodge, Douglas, Kenosha, Racine, and Rock) had swings towards Barrett by two points or more. The Democratic strongholds of Dane County and Milwaukee County went more to Barrett in the recall election, while the Republican strongholds of Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington went more Walker.

Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted the similarities between the 2010 and 2012 elections while looking at the exit poll numbers.[106] Walker won every demographic group he won in 2010, while Barrett did the same. Probably due to the stripping of collective bargaining from public employees, the percentage of voters identifying as union members increased from 26% of the vote in 2010 to 33% in 2012. Despite this, Walker won the union vote by a larger margin in 2012 than in 2010 (38% vs 37%). 54% of voters approved of Walker's job performance, while 52% approved of Walker restricting collective bargaining for public employee unions. 51% of voters approved of public employee unions. Only 46% approved of the Wisconsin Democratic Party. 70% of voters believed recalls should never be used or should only be used in case of misconduct, while only 27% thought they should be allowed for any reason. Exit polling also showed a non-volatile electorate, with only 8% of voters deciding whom to vote for in the last few days before the election.[citation needed]

Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, 2014

On July 31, 2014, Scott Bauer reported for the Associated Press:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday [July 31, 2014] upheld the 2011 law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most [Wisconsin] public workers, sparked massive protests and led to Republican Gov. Scott Walker's recall election and rise to national prominence. The 5-2 ruling upholds Walker's signature policy achievement in its entirety and is a major victory for the potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, who is seeking re-election this year. The ruling also marks the end of the three-year legal fight over the law, which prohibits public-employee unions from collectively bargaining for anything beyond wage increases based on inflation. A federal appeals court twice upheld the law as constitutional. "No matter the limitations or 'burdens' a legislative enactment places on the collective-bargaining process, collective bargaining remains a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation", Justice Michael Gableman wrote.[107]

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented from the ruling, arguing the law unconstitutionally infringes on protected rights.

Investigation of alleged illegal campaign coordination

In August 2012, the first investigation, which had been launched by John Chisholm, Milwaukee County District Attorney, a Democrat, into missing funds, was rolled into a second John Doe probe based on a theory that Governor Walker's campaign had illegally coordinated with conservative groups engaged in issue advocacy during the recall elections.[108] The initial John Doe judge, now retired Kenosha County Circuit Judge Barbara A. Kluka, overseeing the John Doe investigation issued 30 subpoenas and 5 search warrants. She also issued a secrecy order which meant that those being investigated were legally bound from discussing any facet of the investigation publicly.[109] Shortly thereafter, she recused herself from the investigation.[110] Kluka's replacement, Judge Gregory Peterson, quashed several subpoenas in January 2014, saying "there was no probable cause shown that they violated campaign finance laws".[111] [112]

The special prosecutor[who?] took the unusual step of filing a supervisory writ, essentially appealing Judge Peterson's decision, with the same appeals court that had denied a motion to stop the investigation.[113] On July 16, 2015 the Wisconsin Supreme Court closed the investigation into whether Governor Walker's campaign had illegally coordinated with outside groups by a 4–2 vote. Justice Michael J. Gableman in writing for the majority stated, "To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor's legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed."[114]

The director of Wisconsin Club for Growth (the Wisconsin arm of the national Club for Growth), Eric O'Keefe, defied the gag order, and filed a lawsuit alleging the probe was partisan and violated First Amendment rights to free expression. In a May 6, 2014 order, Judge Rudolph T. Randa found the investigation had no legal basis.[115]

One day later, a three-judge panel (Wood, Bauer and Easterbrook) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago stayed Judge Randa's preliminary injunction, ruling he had overstepped his authority as prosecutors had already appealed an earlier decision in the case. Randa could issue his injunction only if he certified their appeal as frivolous. The appeals court also ruled that Judge Randa could not order prosecutors to destroy evidence collected in the five-county probe.[116][117][118][119][120] Judge Randa quickly certified the appeal as frivolous and the appeals court upheld the preliminary injunction ruling that he did have the authority to issue the injunction.[121]

At the request of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the court unsealed documents from the investigation on June 19, 2014.[122] These documents reveal the prosecutors' theory that Governor Walker was at the center of a plan to illegally coordinate fundraising efforts with a number of outside conservative groups to help him in the 2012 recall election, bypassing state election laws. A theory that had been ruled as having no legal basis by two judges.[123]

According to a statement by prosecutors "At the time the investigation was halted, Governor Walker was not a target of the investigation. At no time has he been served with a subpoena", and that they have "no conclusions as to whether there is sufficient evidence to charge anyone with a crime".[124]

To date, no one has been charged in the investigation.[122][125] The probe has been effectively shut down with Judge Peterson's quashing of subpeonas until the Wisconsin Supreme Court rules on whether the investigation was legal.[126]

On August 21, 2014, a number of email messages were disclosed from a previous court filing by a special prosecutor. According to Politico, the emails purports to show that Walker made an early decision for money to be funneled though a group he trusted, and shows that he had a direct hand in "orchestrating the fundraising logistics of the opposition to the recalls".[127] According to CBS News, the disclosures show that prosecutors claimed that Walker "personally solicited donations for [the] conservative group Wisconsin Club for Growth to get around campaign finance limits and disclosure requirements as he fended off the recall attempt in 2012."[128]

One of the emails released read, "As the Governor discussed … he wants all the issue advocacy efforts run through one group to ensure correct messaging. We had some past problems with multiple groups doing work on 'behalf' of Gov. Walker and it caused some issues … The Governor is encouraging all to invest in the Wisconsin Club for Growth."[129] The Washington Post reported that the documents released show Walker solicited donors such as Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, hedge fund manager Paul Singer, and real estate businessman Donald Trump to give large contributions to a tax-exempt group that backed him during the recall efforts.[129]

Wisconsin Club for Growth reportedly only ran issues ads, none of which had to do with the recall attempt.[130] According to a The Wall Street Journal editorial (August 24, 2014), it is "legal and common" for politicians to raise money for political action committees, party committees, and 501(c)(4)'s. There are no allegations that the Wisconsin Club for Growth gave the money to Walker, or even advertised on his behalf.[131]

In September 2014, lawyers asked a federal appeals court to uphold an injunction that blocks a Wisconsin prosecutor from reviving an investigation that targeted conservative organizations accused of illegally coordinating with the Governor for the purpose of circumventing campaign finance limits, citing selective prosecution and violations of free speech and equal protection under the law.[132]

On September 9, 2014, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal. During arguments, Judge Frank Easterbrook questioned the constitutionality of the secrecy orders, stating it's "screaming with unconstitutionality". Judge Diane Wood focused in on why the suit was filed in federal court. O'Keefe's attorneys pointed to the fact that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had yet to take up the cases filed in state court.[133]

On September 24, 2014, the Seventh Circuit reversed Judge Randa's injunction order and dismissed the lawsuit, not based on the merits of the case, but ruling only on federal interference in a state case.[134] O'Keefe filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2015.[135]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. ↑ NBC, CNN, Fox News, Los Angeles Times, CBS News.
  6. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. ↑ "Recall Election Tests Strategies for November", April 28, 2012.
  10. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  11. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  12. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  13. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  14. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. ↑ "With half the money coming from out of state, Walker far outraising recall organizers", Wisconsin State Journal, December 15, 2011; retrieved December 17, 2011.
  16. ↑ "Walker recall effort kicks off", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 15, 2011; retrieved December 17, 2011.
  17. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  18. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  19. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  20. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  21. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  22. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  23. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  24. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  25. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 29 circuit court judges signed Walker recall petitions Archived November 3, 2013 at the Wayback Machine
  27. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  28. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  29. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  30. ↑ "News operations report that staffers signed Walker recall petition", jsonline.com; accessed May 6, 2014.
  31. ↑ "WTMJ4 report on staffers who signed Walker recall petition", jrn.com; accessed May 6, 2014.
  32. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  33. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  35. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  36. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  37. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  38. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  40. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  41. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  42. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  44. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  45. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  46. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  47. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  48. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  50. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  51. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  52. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  53. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  54. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  55. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  56. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  57. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  58. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  59. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  60. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  61. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  62. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  63. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  64. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  65. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  66. ↑ 66.0 66.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  67. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  68. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  69. ↑ 69.0 69.1 69.2 69.3 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  70. ↑ 70.0 70.1 70.2 70.3 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  71. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  72. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  73. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  74. ↑ 74.0 74.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  75. ↑ 75.0 75.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  76. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  77. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  78. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  79. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  80. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  81. ↑ 81.0 81.1 81.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  82. ↑ 82.0 82.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  83. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  84. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  85. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  86. ↑ 86.0 86.1 86.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  87. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  88. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  89. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  90. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  91. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  92. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  93. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  94. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  95. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  96. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  97. ↑ 97.0 97.1 97.2 97.3 97.4 97.5 97.6 97.7 97.8 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  98. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  99. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  100. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  101. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  102. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  103. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  104. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  105. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  106. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  107. ↑ "2011 law which led to recall election is upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, 5-2", talkingpointsmemo.com; accessed August 19, 2014.
  108. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  109. ↑ "Wisconsin Political Speech Raid", Wall Street Journal; November 18, 2013.
  110. ↑ "Judge in Democrat-led John Doe probe recuses herself", Wisconsin Reporter; October 30, 2013.
  111. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  112. ↑ Milwaukee John Doe investigation, watchdog.org; accessed September 15, 2015.
  113. ↑ Wisconsin Reporter, "John Doe special prosecutor appeals judge's ruling quashing subpoenas", February 28, 2014.
  114. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  115. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  116. ↑ 7th Circuit United States Court of Appeals overturns Randa decision, jsonline.com; retrieved September 12, 2014.
  117. ↑ "Judge's order tossing 'John Doe' investigation is stayed", Wisconsin State Journal, May 7, 2014; retrieved May 14, 2014.
  118. ↑ RE "John Doe" investigations against Republicans and conservatives in Wisconsin, watchdog.org; accessed July 31, 2014.
  119. ↑ "Government by intimidation", nypost.com, May 11, 2014; accessed August 1, 2014.
  120. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  121. ↑ "Appeals court judge upholds judge's order shutting down John Doe probe", Wisconsin Reporter, June 9, 2014.
  122. ↑ 122.0 122.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  123. ↑ "Judge stops WI prosecutors' John Doe probe into conservatives", Wisconsin Reporter, May 6, 2014.
  124. ↑ "Governor Walker not a target according to 'John Doe' special prosecutor", madison.com; accessed August 4, 2014.
  125. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  126. ↑ "Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up John Doe complaints", watchdog.org, December 17, 2014.
  127. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  128. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  129. ↑ 129.0 129.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  130. ↑ "Target of secret John Doe probe is fighting back and speaking out", Wisconsin Reporter, October 2, 2014.
  131. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  132. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  133. ↑ Wisconsin prosecutors appeal for protection from blowback in partisan probe Wisconsin Reporter; September 9, 2014
  134. ↑ Appeals court reverses John Doe injunction, but Wisconsin's secret war far from over, Wisconsin Reporter, September 24, 2014.
  135. ↑ O'Keefe takes his case against John Doe to U.S. Supreme Court, watchdog.org, January 21, 2015; accessed July 27, 2015.

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall_election&oldid=706964128"