Community Blogs
Kloppenburg disenfranchises nuns?
Oh, those evil nuns in Sauk County!
Seems the sisters, who have taken vows of silence and spend their days making communion wafers, are known to vote by absentee ballot in every election. The ballots are dropped off during each voting cycle by the town clerk, the nuns select their candidates, and the same town clerk then picks them up in a sealed envelope.
There are 18 nuns living this life of peace and quiet at the Lady of Our Valley Monastery.
Well, seems the Kloppenburg team noticed that the nuns absentee ballots didn't have witness signatures on them. (Keep in mind that although there are rules on the books dictating that every absentee ballot have a signature from a witness, it is questionable as to whether or not such enforcement - from the Government Accountability Board - always occurs.) However, in this case, the Kloppenburg team insisted that the ballots be discounted. And they succeeded - for the time being.
The canvas board and the town clerk who works with the nuns were disturbed by the unbelievable and distrusting manner in which the Kloppenburg team insisted on disenfranchising the nuns. After all, anyone think that these nuns belong to moveon.org? or ACORN? were they going out and passing out cigarettes in an effort to get people to vote for their candidate? slashing tires of the opposing party so they cannot get to the polls? falsifying information on their own ballots? voting twice? (maybe there are only 9 nuns in the Monastery instead of the 18 mentioned!). Ridiculous.
The town clerk was adamant that she collected the ballots from the nuns the way she always does. She stated that their votes were legitimate and should be allowed. However, the Kloppenburg lawyers prevailed and the canvas board relented, tossing out the ballots.
By the way, 4 ballots were for Kloppenburg, while 14 went to Prosser.
The canvas board has appealed the decision to not allow the nun's votes.
Many seem to feel, and I agree, that the Kloppenburg camp is nitpicking small discrepancies in an effort to make them bigger ones. When the final tallies come in - once again showing Joanne Kloppenburg lost - the lawyers for Kloppenburg will then take the matter to court. The goal - to hold up seating elected Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and keep him from voting on the budget repair bill and other important legislation that may be presented.
Can the Kloppenburg camp sink any lower? Nuns? Sure hope Archbishop Jerome Listecki dotted all his i's and crossed all his t's on his ballot...
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (62)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- Just a few observations... (311)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts
60 Comments
jhayett - May 04, 2011 12:55 PM
Tom Bal - May 04, 2011 1:35 PM
I have a question.
Now I heard Waukesha is behind in their recounting.
And may need to ask for an extension.
If they have to ask for an extension I believe it has to be done in front of a judge in Dane County.
If that is indeed the cast let’s say she/he refuses the extension.
Would the votes not counted up to that point then not be admissible for the election?
Just asking I have a problem sending anything in front of a Madison Judge and was curious to know what happens if he/she refuses to extend Waukesha’s due date.
They may not need an extension but what if they do.
And why is it taking so long in Waukesha.
Is there outside interference stalling this count?
Does anyone know the answer to this?
geno53151 - May 04, 2011 1:38 PM
irked - May 04, 2011 2:31 PM
all the priests and nuns that I have ever talked to were Democrat supporters . It kind
of is like saying (see I told you so ) .
Tom Bal - May 04, 2011 7:32 PM
Every single word of it.
Democratic victory I guess I’ve seen you before.
referee33 - May 04, 2011 8:33 PM
jhayett - May 04, 2011 8:55 PM
wisborn - May 05, 2011 12:38 AM
Melissa Mulliken - May 05, 2011 6:41 AM
jhayett - May 05, 2011 7:16 AM
ahemmer - May 05, 2011 7:24 AM
Ms. Kloppenburg is guilty of a number of inaccuracies. What is she doing to correct them? Foolishly declaring victory after ahead by only 200-plus votes? Or her claim that David Prosser met with Governor Walker right after the election? To refresh your memory on that one, please see:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/120291709.html
A small blurb from the article: "And in her complaint seeking a probe of Nickolaus, Kloppenburg alleges Prosser had a one-on-one meeting with Republican Gov. Scott Walker on the day after the election - an explosive charge in an officially nonpartisan race where the candidates questioned each other's claims of political independence."
or this little gem:
"Melissa Mulliken, Kloppenburg's campaign manager, said she had been in touch with two or three people with knowledge of a Prosser-Walker meeting, including at least one who observed Prosser entering the meeting. She declined to name the people."
Can't name the people? Maybe cuz they don't exist...
What the Kloppenburg camp is trying to do with the recount is "disrespectful to Wisconsin voters" as are the efforts by the Democrats (who lost control of Wisconsin government in November, yet fail to admit such) to block everything Govenor Walker and the Republicans in charge are trying to do.
Accept defeat and move on. The attempts by Kloppenburg and her campaign personnel are delaying the inevitable. All in an effort to stall seating Prosser on the bench - meaning he cannot vote on important legislation coming from Madison.
irked - May 05, 2011 8:44 AM
jhayett - May 05, 2011 10:37 AM
First, it takes a felony to take the right away from a US citizen from his right to a vote. The rule you site is not a felony and has been performed for years in small rural voting areas. The nuns also did not cheat on their ballots and you and your Kloppy legal team know this. Why don't you do the right thing and let the nuns come in to verify their votes? Or is this just a step to your illegal and corrupt ways to try and not allow the Brookfield votes? You wonder why America is fed up with liberal democrats. If not, Kloppy and you need to take a quick peek in a mirror. Did you also see the latest local elections that took place last week? All three Republicans trounced, by a 75%-25% margin, over the democrats. Need more wake-up calls Melissa?
Second, it's your party and your progressive liberal candidate who keep bashing America with the Republicans wanting to disenfranchise the voters with laws like voter ID's. What do you call this? What would your party and their full backing, bias MSM say if it were Prosser doing this and costing our state millions in wasted tax payer money? BTW, do you even have a clue why all this started and why your party of lies and corruption are getting trounced? SPENDING money we don't have. Need more wake-up calls Mss. Mulliken?
MGarber - May 05, 2011 11:47 AM
Classic LLC. Very classy!
irked - May 05, 2011 2:08 PM
irked - May 05, 2011 2:10 PM
ahemmer - May 05, 2011 2:45 PM
Didn't Al Gore's lawyer even try to make the case that determining voter intent outweighed the voter's inability to follow voting instructions during the Bush/Gore presidential election?
I find it amusing that the Democrats - who are so quick to demand that every vote count - (sometimes more than once in the case of ACORN and moveon.org - wink wink) were so quick to toss out the nuns votes.
And the Government Accountability Board - left-leaning as it is, has been known to drag it's feet in updating the voter rolls (are they even cleaned up yet? JB Van Hollen started a lawsuit demanding that the GAB DO THEIR JOB and get dead people, people who moved, etc. off the voter rolls. I have my doubts as to how rigorously the GAB enforces the rules it has on it's books.
More reasons to pass Voter ID! Although the left will be sure to see the legislation end up in court. Classless.
ahemmer - May 05, 2011 3:05 PM
To begin with, Kloppenburg is not qualified to become a Supreme Court judge. Most people know that. The only reason some wanted her elected was she would have been a guaranteed vote - a liberal puppet - against anything Gov. Walker wants to do.
Secondly, Kloppenburg has strong liberal ties, supports other liberal politicians, and is a liberal herself. During the campaign, she tried to pass herself off as "non-partisan" which was a big lie.
Third, Kloppenburg declared victory the night of the election. When out of millions of votes, she was ahead by a tiny margin of 200 plus votes. What WAS she thinking? What morons advised her to do such a thing? A huge black eye on the campaign, yet they sure don't seem to exhibit any regret or shame over their lack of integrity.
Fourth, Kloppenburg is trying to muddy the waters and confuse people. Making it appear as though there are a lot of voting anomolies around the state. Blowing smoke. All she wants to do - which is the liberal m.o. - is make false claims - and make them often. Eventually the libs hope people believe them.
Fifth, Kloppenburg lost. That is a fact. There is NO way she can overcome a 7,000 plus voter margin. Yet, she (and the Dems behind her) want to stall in an effort to delay Prosser being seated. Agenda? Yes.
Tom Bal - May 05, 2011 6:05 PM
ahemmer - May 05, 2011 6:41 PM