The GAB’s Duty of “Careful Examination”: Why Judge Davis Got It Right

I have written a few things on my personal blog about the GAB’s authority and duty to conduct a more thorough review of recall petitions than it apparently intends to conduct. Last Thursday, Judge Mac Davis ordered a more extensive review. Ed Fallone thinks that the judge got it wrong. I disagree. Here’s why.

Ed argues that “there are no explicit provisions in the statutes that direct the GAB to look for and eliminate duplicate, fictitious or unrecognizable signatures. Just a direction not to count signatures that are insufficient under Section 9.10(2)(e).”

I see two problems with this statement. First, the GAB’s obligation upon the filing of a petition is not limited to the elimination of signatures for the reasons set forth in § 9.10(2)(e). To the contrary, the obligation imposed on GAB is to “determine by careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient.” Wis. Stat. § 9.10(3)(b). Whatever that duty is, it is nowhere limited by § 9.10(2)(e). Second, as we will see, even if it is so limited, § 9.10(2)(e) does not relieve GAB of the obligation to do what Judge Davis ordered it to do.

So what does this duty of “careful examination” entail?

Continue ReadingThe GAB’s Duty of “Careful Examination”: Why Judge Davis Got It Right

A Tale of Three States, Part 6: Happy Days

In the previous post in this series, I took the imprisonment data from Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin back to 1991.  I’ve been interested, though, in pinpointing when exactly the Minnesota-Wisconsin imprisonment disparity arose, which requires going back further — much further, to the 1950′s.  Here are the numbers:

WI Imprisonment Rate (per 1000,000) Percent Change MN Imprisonment Rate (per 1000,000) Percent Change IN Imprisonment Rate (per 1000,000) Percent Change
1950 58.7 n/a 63.0 n/a 120.4 n/a
1955 61.6 4.9% 61.6 -2.2% 103.1 -14.4%
1960 69.5 12.8% 60.3 -2.1% 116.4 12.9%
1965 68.3 -1.7% 49.1 -18.6% 91.1 -21.7%
1970 67.3 -1.5% 41.7 -15.1% 79.6 -12.6%
1975 65.0 -3.4% 42.0 0.7% 73.0 -8.3%
1980 85.0 30.8% 49.3 17.4% 114.0 56.2%
1985 113.6 33.6% 55.9 13.4% 182.3 60.0%
1990 152.6 34.3% 71.9 28.6% 229.7 26.0%
1995 218.6 43.3% 105.1 46.2% 277.7 20.9%
2000 386.9 77.0% 126.8 20.6% 331.0 19.2%
2005 392.9 1.6% 173.1 36.5% 399.5 (est) 20.7%
2010 387.2 -1.5% 177.8 2.7% 459.9 15.1%

 

The numbers tell a remarkable story.  Here are some of the parts of that story that stand out for me:  

Continue ReadingA Tale of Three States, Part 6: Happy Days

Friends of Scott Walker v. GAB Changes the Recall Rules Mid-Stream

Today, Judge J. Mac Davis ruled that the Government Accountability Board must take “affirmative steps to identify and strike duplicate, fictitious or unrecognizable signatures as it reviews the recall petitions expected to be filed against Gov. Scott Walker.”  The ruling comes in the case of Friends of Scott Walker v. GAB, filed in Waukesha County Circuit Court on December 15, 2011. The complaint in the case sought a declaratory judgment from the court that the procedures of the Government Accountability Board, whereby the GAB accepted (but did not necessarily count) duplicative signatures on recall petitions, violated the United States Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution and Wisconsin law.  The complaint in the case is available here.

The GAB responded to the lawsuit by arguing that the Wisconsin statutes provide a clearly defined procedure that allows elected officials subject to recall to instigate challenges to any signatures that appear to be duplicative, fictitious or unrecognizable. After the GAB accepts the recall petitions, there is a period of 10 days in which the signatures may be challenged by the official. It is at the challenge stage that suspect signatures should be identified and removed, according to the GAB, and not earlier when the recall petitions are accepted by the agency. The GAB also contended that there was no provision in the Wisconsin Statutes that granted the agency the authority to do what the Friends of Scott Walker asked it to do.

Judge Davis disagreed with the GAB, and earlier today he ruled that the GAB is required to take affirmative action that will have the effect of reducing the burden that the Friends of Scott Walker would otherwise face. This is because the GAB must now identify and remove suspect signatures on its own initiative.

Why is the GAB obligated to do this, when there is no statutory language that explicitly places such an obligation on the agency?

Continue ReadingFriends of Scott Walker v. GAB Changes the Recall Rules Mid-Stream
Newer Posts
Older Posts