Tomorrow next to Mickey's – More SECRET Machines

NO more Secret Coded Machines in our Elections

Another generation of Secret Coded voting machines to be “Demonstrated”

Kevin Kennedy, Administrator of the Government Accountability Board has taken a cue from the Governor on how to duck the press and public by posting an open public event just one day before it happens. (Remind you of the of the vote on collective bargaining in the legislature?) Well, this event is the public view of the next generation of voting machines and software that has no oversight by any elected official, government agency, or the judiciary. These are the future tools of Kathy Nickolaus, Command Central, and other covert election machine vendors that have proven to be hackable while the programming that counts your vote is a secret, in the purview of a corporate few. (Pictured right is Mickey’s Bar on Williamson Street, which is just yards away from the Machine testing and viewing.)

What if a few hundred people showed up?

Of course the meeting is just an exercise to meet the requirements of the law, to hold an open demonstration, with the expectation that few, if any, citizens will show up at on Wednesday or Thursday. What if people did show up to demand that our secret coded electronic voting come to and end in Wisconsin? What if the secret machine vendors were finally called to answer the question they have dodged for a decade – Why is the programming for the machines that tabulate our vote a trade secret, proprietary, and unavailable by anyone anywhere for forensic analysis?


Public Demonstration of Voting Equipment
5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Wisconsin Election Administration Council
9:30 a.m. – 12:00 Noon

Thursday, August 2, 2012
Both meetings will be held at the
State Central Services Building
202 South Thornton Avenue
Madison, WI 53703

There will be a PUBLIC DEMOSTRATION of Elections Systems & Software’s Unity 3.2.00 Rev 3 Voting Systems voting equipment at the above time and place. This equipment is being tested and considered for approval by the Government Accountability Board.
The G.A.B. is testing two pieces of ES&S equipment and software:
? DS200 polling-place optical scanner for paper ballots
? AutoMARK VAT auto-marking device, which is used to assist voters with disabilities cast paper ballots
? Unity Rev 3 software
The Wisconsin Election Administration Council (WI-EAC) will also meet at the above time and place to view a demonstration of the equipment.
Under Administrative Code Chapter 7, the Board may use a panel of local election officials and electors to assist in the review of the voting system. The Board is asking the WI-EAC, created pursuant to Section 15.607, Wis. Stats., to serve this purpose. WI-EAC’s input will be made part of staff’s recommendation that will be submitted to the Board for consideration at its August 28, 2012, meeting.
The demonstration and WI-EAC meeting are open to the public.Notice of Demonstration on GAB web site

As scores of citizen volunteers have issued open records requests and are auditing the votes cast in the June 5 Recall Elections, anomalies are being discovered. Now, on the heels of the most expensive and suspicious election in the state’s history, Kevin Kennedy is introducing the same secret machines and software that your children will be voting on. (pictured left – volunteers auditing the Recall Election ballots from the June 5 election in Madison.)


List of Questions that should be asked:

From Jim Mueller and posted on the Wisconsin Counts! face book page:

Some of the questions that members of the Council (or citizens if they are allowed to ask questions) should ask about:

1) The programming (all levels). Is it escrowed? With whom? Accessible by whom? Under what conditions?

2) Since all companies have programming capable of accurately tabulating the votes, will the company (E S & S) make its programming publicly available? If not, why is there a need for secrecy? (Do they have programmers, executives, managers or other employees who have worked for other companies that manufacture, maintain or program voting machines? Have they obtained the programming used by other companies?).

3) Are these machines capable of wireless communication? What would have to be added in order to provide wireless capability? What does that hardware look like? Where does it attach to the voting machine?

Other questions – From Mary Seitz
If there is wireless or Internet connections transmitting data, how do we know if the data is secure? Both types of transmissions are easily hacked.
Have the machines passed security checks? Where can we verify the security checks?
What is the audit trail for the machines?

Join the face book Group

“Public Demonstration against corrupt voting machines” group on face book.
During happy hour. We’ll be putting our protest pants on, grabbing our hand-counted paper ballot signs and staging a little public demonstration of our own. See you there!!!” – Rowan Viva (pictured left)

Tell Secret Code to Hit the Road

County Clerks vs. People Counting Votes

Who are the people of Wisconsin who are counting Recall Election votes?

After working within the system administered by Keven Kennedy’s Government Accountability Board since the April 5, 2011 Supreme Court Election when Waukesha County Clerk, Kathy Nickolaus “found” 14,000 votes, things have changed. Many of the same citizens who observed the recount of that election, who documented ripped and torn vote bags, mis-dated poll tapes, and copies of election inspection documents that were obvious copies, (see proof of fraud tab above) – all clearly indicating the chain of custody of the vote had been broken. There was no way to determine if the votes in the bags were the same votes as packed on election night or not. Yet, the votes were counted and the learning curve began.

These citizen volunteers learned that Kevin Kennedy had created a electronic voting machine monster in the state, where counties contract with private corporations with no over site of the secret computer programing that counts your vote. What’s more, current statutes make it illegal to compare the paper ballots with the digital machine total on any given election night. Kennedy then activated these machines, which vary in model and function from scanners to touch screens from county to county and even ward to ward.

Kathy Nickolaus on Rampage

Then Kennedy created a culture of obstruction within the community of county clerks that administer the elections on the local level; a culture that allowed Kathy Nickolaus to write her own software on a personal computer and when her inept system thew an election, she went unpunished and retains her position of county clerk to this day! Kennedy has set the president that meddling in the count of your vote is not a felony, heck, it is not even a misdemeanor. If you meddle with the vote count in Wisconsin, you get a reprimand and are allowed to keep your office. Why not try it?

Volunteer observers arose early on those chilly Wisconsin mornings of that April 5 election recount, driving as far a 200 miles only to learn that the person who has full charge of how the recount is to be administered is not the GAB or State Attorney General’s office, but the county clerk. Yep. Kathy Nickolaus was the sole authority to determine where the ballots would be stored, and, incidentally, they were stored in her office! The volunteers were treated as interlopers and shown all the courtesy of lepers in a nursery…and the learning curve was bending.

The obstruction to verify the vote was, not only met from the party and candidate who stood to lose the race, but from the party the stood to win! The culture of blind acceptance of Kevin Kennedy’s administration policy of allowing secret programming of voting machines and protecting a host of county clerks who viewed citizens as interlopers, crossed party lines…and the learning curve was bending.

Volunteers began to meet on facebook and groups like Wisconsin Counts! and Election Integrity were formed to promote the use of hand counted paper ballots in the state. They organized a volunteer exit poll during the Senate Recall election last Summer. They scraped together enough money to create a booth to educate people about the difference between voter fraud and election fraud and to demonstrate how electronic voting machines can be programmed to flip votes…and the learning curve was bending.

The June 5 Recall Election Plan

Then came the election of historic proportions with national implications for the political agendas of Republicans and Democrats in the November Presidential race, and with it came the money in truck loads bearing the insignia on door: “Citizens United”. The hype, and media buyout was “as advertized” and Walker began raising big money from big donors across the land, until in the end he would spend $35 per vote received. If ever there was a temptation to flip a vote it arrived in Wisconsin on the wings of tornado from hell.

This time the learning curve was met with the anticipation of Nascar driver on the final turn. Volunteer citizens had learned to expect no support from any party organization, no guidance from Kevin Kennedy or the GAB, no money from big corporations or special interest groups. By now they had learned that. not only would there be no help, but they would meet the obstructive culture of Kevin Kennedy and his cadre of County Clerks. They had only one weapon that was straightened out of the learning curve of the past two years – The Freedom of Information Act.

Open Records Requests

The merry band of citizen volunteers issued open requests in all of the 72 counties of Wisconsin, which would enable them to “trust but verify” the ballots cast in the most expensive state election in history. The requests would enable them to hold the election materials, ballots, memory cards, and election reports, past the 21 days required by state statute. In the process it was discovered that nearly half of the counties had already sent back the memory cartridges to the vendor, Command Central, before the the time they were to kept secure by law. Command Central Penalizes Crawford County $12,400


You may have read some news reports about citizens who are out counting ballots to compare the total to the machine digital count. It is on going, but not without the obstruction of Kevin Kennedy and the County Clerks – they seek to obstruct and prevent the people of Wisconsin from verifying the ballots to the machine count. Kevin Kennedy sent out his directives of obstruction to all the clerks of the state dictating measures they could be imposed to stop the action – like staff fees of $16 – $30 per hour, not allowing citizens to touch the ballots, and imposing timelines that would move the count date to late August. He has maintained this policy even after he was warned by the State Attorney General’s office, in a memorandum, that the GAB has no jurisdiction over matters that fall under FOIA law. Kennedy and the Clerks have dismissed the warning of the AG and are holding to the “15 Directives of Obstruction”.

Here is a list of counties that expected to impose fees to count ballots or view election materials – memory cards that were sent back early. If you live in one of these counties, you may want to give your clerk a call. List of Counties requiring FEE
You can also read the list in the “Comments” Section of this post.

Filing Suit

If citizens volunteers want to verify the Recall vote count they must seek legal help to file suit against Kennedy and the County Clerks. Should it be so difficult or outrageous for citizens to seek the truth of the vote count? When did the office of county clerk become a living barrier to public records? They are librarians of the records. Can you imagine being charge staff time for information at your local library, and then being told you cannot touch the books?

The citizen volunteers need to raise cash to pay a retainer fee for an attorney who is willing to enforce the FOIA pro bono. A $500 fee is a requirement of the firm as a retainer and will be returned, paid by the municipality that denied access, if the case is won. Below is the link where you may give what you can if you support this effort. The attorney’s name is Christa Westerberg and she is on the Freedom of Information Act Council of Wisconsin.

Donation Information

UPDATE The Goal has been reached. The $500 was raised in just 24 hours thanks to the individual donations of 30 people who donated between $5 and $50!


We need to raise $500 for legal retainer fees.
The attorney will not bill for hours.

Kevin Kennedy has issued 15 directives to County Clerks, many of which are clearly against the Freedom of Information Act. These directives are stifling the attempt by citizen volunteers for auditing the ballots to compare them to the machine digital total for the June 5 Recall Election.

Help Audit June 5 Election Ballots

Between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. June 5, 2012 – What happened?


At some tick of time between the hour of 8 and 9 p.m. on June 5 there was a shock, a surprise, a shift in human reality across the State of Wisconsin. Recall1

For some it was a flow of elation, for others it was closer to hearing the news that your dad or your dog just died. Regardless of the emotional spasm of the moment and beyond all the political bluster, the abrupt “call” of the governor’s race was not expected by most. Not Walker supporters. Not Barrett supporters. The word on the street was to hunker in for a long night of nail biting and up and down pacing while following the returns of a close election.

On election day, the hopes of Barrett supporters were lifted to learn of the high turn out numbers, which generally bode well for Democrats. Walker supporters had seen poll numbers close in the days before the election and feared their Wauwatosa boy wonder might be toppled.

What Just happened?

The “What just happened?”diebold_6 moment was as bipartisan in its implications as a beer and brat picnic on the governor’s mansion lawn. It happened to Republican’s in the Racine Senate race, it happened to Democrats in the gubernatorial race. “What just happened” was a realization, as deep as string theory, that the people were no longer in control.

Somehow, in that hour, citizen confidence in their vote was punched in the gut. Somehow, technology and the media had trumped a process that forms the very basis of the American way of life – our vote. A simple process that began with marking an “X” on a slip of paper and sliding it into a slot, had become a complex system of computer programing filled with words like “PROMPACKS (congaing both EPROM and RAM memory) for Optech ballots scanners, PCMICA memory cards for the M-series scanners (e.g. M100, M150, and M650), Compact flash memory for the TSX touch screen, SD memory for the AutoMark, etc.” (Quote from the page [Fraud “IT”] above).

The results of this algorithmic total are statistically predicted, well in advance of any complete or final tally, by exit polls compiled by major news organizations. In the case of the Recall election, the governor’s race was called while people were still standing in line and waiting to vote! These news moguls are in competition for the “first to call” status. ABC won! WOW! NBC followed shortly thereafter.

Update 9:50 pm EST: NBC News is now reporting that Walker will win the recall election. With 21 percent of precincts in Walker is currently winning 61%-38%. Barrett’s strongest counties are still largely not reporting, but the projection is being made based on a combination of exit poll and early results which have come in. ABC WON! WOW! They called the election for Walker shortly after

Update 9:09 pm EST: Fox News now joins the chorus, reporting a race that is “too close to call” at this time.

Update 9:06 pm EST: Chuck Todd of NBC News says their exit poll data indicates a “coin flip” as to who will win.

Update 9:03 pm EST: CNN’s exit poll has a 50-50 split of the vote between Barrett and Walker.

Update 9:00 pm EST: Polls have now closed, but again those currently in line will still be allowed to vote. MSNBC is now callling the race “too close to call” at this time.

CNN Election Updates

MILWAUKEE | Tue Jun 5, 2012 9:42pm EDT

(Reuters) – Exit polls show the Wisconsin recall election on Tuesday is essentially tied between Republican Governor Scott Walker and Democratic challenger Tom Barrett, CNN said.

The CNN data is based on interviews with voters after they cast ballots and not on actual results.

ABC WON Everyone else LOST

It is clear to the Supreme Court that ABC is a “person” who is more important than the late night voter standing in line determined to vote, but something even more insidious is working in the back rooms with locked doors where exit polls are tallied and altered. Yes…altered. They don’t use the word “altered” they call them “adjusted exit polls”

How are they altered or adjusted, Richard Charnin explains:

Walker Recall: The Exit Pollster’s MO Never Changes

Richard Charnin
June 9, 2012

The exit pollster’s MO never changes. In the recall, the pundits said it was “too close to call”. I’m quite sure that Barrett was winning, but the media knew the fix was in so they had to keep it close. They knew the actual exit poll numbers would not see the light of day. But they sure called it quickly for Walker, didn’t they?

The pollster’s have had plenty of experience in adjusting exit polls to match the vote count.

In 2004, preliminary state exit poll numbers were downloaded from the CNN website by Jonathan Simon. Kerry led by 50-48%. The state polls were already in the process of being matched to the recorded vote. But Bush was winning the vote count – a massive divergence from the exit polls.

We later learned that Kerry led the National Exit Poll from 4pm to midnight. At 4pm (8349 respondents) he led by 51-48%. At 730 pm (11027 respondents) by 51-48%. At 1222am (13047) by 51-47%. But we didn’t see these numbers. They were not meant for public viewing.

The next day, the CNN and NYT websites showed that Bush won the National Exit Poll (13660) by 51-48% – matching the recorded vote. How did the final 613 National Exit Poll respondents enable Bush to flip the vote? The exit pollsters never could answer that one. After all, the flip was mathematically impossible.

The unadjusted 2004 exit polls (state and national) were not released until about a year ago, long after the damage was done. And guess what? Kerry actually won the 13660 respondents! He had 7064 (51.7%), Bush 6414 (47.0%), Other 182 (1.3%).

Someday, probably in 2022, we’ll get to see the unadjusted recall exit poll numbers. In the meantime, here’s the 2004 National Exit Poll Timeline that was “not meant for public viewing”.

Adjusted Exit Polls

Covert Corporate (Persons) also Tabulate your vote – IN SECRET

Another more serious crack in the glass ceiling of denial split the surface in that hour between 8 and 9 pm on June 5. The part of the exit poll that was NOT adjusted didn’t make any sense. More people left the polls saying they supported Obama then Walker by 51-44%. Yet, Walker won. Read “Walker Recall Vote IMPOSSIBLE

We are still suffering from the backlash of the economic strain caused by Wall Street Greed. Do you think that elections are free of this same insatiable thirst for wealth and power? If 36 million dollars are invested in getting your vote on the front side of the election, don’t you think millions are available to steal your vote on the back side? Oh, there was plenty o’ cash available in Wisconsin. The recall was set up as a push against Obama by such players as Karl Rove.

The GOP is pretty sure that whatever happens is a precursor to how the state — and more blue collar worker states – will fare come the general election. “Karl Rove….argues that the results of Walker’s recall election and the margin of the vote will offer the first genuine clues as to whether Wisconsin’s political environment is similar to four years ago or has reverted to the nail-biter status of 2000 and 2004. ‘This will give a very clear indication of whether Wisconsin and the industrial Midwest will be up for grabs this year,’ Rove said.

Wisconsin Bellweather

Could your vote be bought?…EASY

When a state electionZins plays out on the stage of national politics can you imagine how much money is available to “spread around”? But how could anyone manage to buy your vote without getting caught? Simple answer: There is no oversight of any kind. Voting Machine vendors like Command Central, who supply all the equipment, programming, and tabulation of your vote, do it in secret; without any oversight from any government agency, elected official, or branch of the judiciary. None. Does this remind you of the housing boom and Wall Street bankers in 2008?

The Classic “Divide and Conquer” Paradigm

The division between conservative and liberal or Republican and Democrat has never been more clearly divisive. The secrecy of vote machine vendors like Command Central(V.P. Larry Zins pictured left) is protected as the two sides are so focused on their opposing agendas, they dismiss or ignore the companies that count the vote secretly. Both parties fear launching recounts or investigations into the secret workings of these companies and view such actions as a political liability; that they will be viewed as a force who wants to destroy voter confidence and the American way of life. Yet, just as in the years before the Wall Street buyout, the opposite is true.

So we wait, for a savvy politician with determination and courage to see that our most fundamental freedom, our vote, is threatened by lack of transparency, and secrecy that is intolerable under any constitution. Meanwhile, it is just us. We the people of Wisconsin.

More and more citizens are becoming aware that our system of voting in Wisconsin is a mess and largely due to long 30 year tenure of Kevin Kennedy as the Administrator of the Government Accountability Board. read “Calling for the resignation of Kevin Kennedy Today citizens are out in numbers to audit the vote of the Recall election to compare the digital machine totals to the ballots.(You may be surprised to learn that this comparison is not done unless there is an official recount, in fact, it is against the law to compare the paper trail to the digital machine count on the night of the election.)

You can get involve by joining one of the citizens’ groups on face book like Wisconsin Counts, Election Integrity, or Election Defense Alliance.

Walker Recall Vote IMPOSSIBLE

Someone is Lying, Cheating, or Stealing

The exit polls taken of voters leaving the schools and community halls on June 5 show 51% favored Obama over Romney 44%. All those Obama supporters voted for Walker? Hard to believe?

So, why would such a high, unlikely, and statistically impossible number of people who favor Obama, vote for Walker? Obama carried Wisconsin by 14 points over McCann in the presidential election, so the exit poll reflects an 7 point slide since then. Yet, the defections of people who voted for Obama in ’08 – that voted for Walker in the recall election are far and away larger than any reasonable rationalization can justify.

CBS exit poll Recall Election

(CBS News) Voters in Wisconsin are deciding today whether to recall their governor, but many are looking to the race to provide clues into the presidential election this November. And early CBS News exit polls show that President Obama would have an advantage over presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the battleground state if the presidential race was held today.

Among voters in today’s recall election, 51 percent said they would pick Mr. Obama, compared to 45 percent for Romney. Two percent say they won’t vote. However, it should be noted that there is a lot of time before the November elections, and it’s too soon to tell what the electorate will be like in five months.

In 2008, Mr. Obama defeated Republican Sen. John McCain by 14 percentage points in Wisconsin.

If the Obama supporters who were polled on June 5 were telling the truth, the president’s campaign best take note of the fact that Walker won. Whatever is going on behind the scenes does hot bode well for Obama’s chances in Wisconsin in November.

The Numbers of Defectors Point to Election Fraud

In county after county and in ward after ward, especially in the rural areas of the state, the defection from Obama ’08 numbers far exceed explanation – at least lawful explanaton. The exit poll suggests Obama dropped from his 14 point ’08 win to a 7 point lead in the exit poll, Yet defections of Obama supporters in the recall show a 20 point defection in statewide totals, which is 13 points stronger than the exit poll suggests should be typical. In fact Obama defections of 35 to as high as 70 points were not unusual in some wards!

Adams County

Leola Walker 98 Barrett 19 – Defection 63% shift 16
Richfield Walker 53 Barrett 25 Defection 54% shift 29

Barron County

Dallas Walker 178 Barrett 70 Defection 47% shift 16

Brown County

Glenmore 435 walker 147 Barrett Defection 52% shift 19
Holland 593 walker 199 Barrett Defeciton 49% shift 22

Buffalo County

Waumandee 161 walker 60 Barrett Defection 55% sshift 24
Montana 94 walker 19 Barrett Defection 74% shift 36

Calument County

Kiel 74 Walker Barret 34 Defection 55% shift 31

Clark County

Beaver 164 Walker Barrett 47 Defection 68% shift 32
Fremont 316 Walker Barrett 100 Defection 57% shift 23
Sherwood 69 Walker 57 Barrett Defection 33% shift 16

The above is only a sampling of unexplainable defections looking at counties for A-C, you can find out how to discover more for yourself, in a bit.

ABC pollster Gary Langer Asks a Stupid Question and Gets….

Wisconsin recall paradox: Why Obama outpolls Romney despite Walker win
Even as voters in the Wisconsin recall election opted to keep Republican Gov. Scott Walker, exit polling shows Obama beating Mitt Romney there by a healthy margin. One explanation: Some voters felt the recall of a just-elected governor was inappropriate.

First, there’s a big difference between a recall vote and a regularly scheduled election. A solid majority of Wisconsin voters – 60 percent – said recall elections are appropriate only in cases of “official misconduct,” according to the Edison exit poll. Some 27 percent said recalls are OK for any reason, and 10 percent said they’re never acceptable.

So. if we want to read into this 60% figure of people who said “elections are appropriate only in case of ‘official misconduct'” and the 10% who said “they’re never acceptable” – how does figure into the huge defection from Obama? The 10% is easy. They were likely Walker supporters who voted for Walker. The 60% were never further qualified as to whether they felt Walker had indeed been guilty of “official misconduct” – after all the media was flooded with news of the on going John Doe investigation for months before the election. Now we must guess at the number of those who fall in the 60% who are likely to have been defectors from Obama. (Thanks for the stupid question Gary Lang) We are dealing with a huge unknown here, not a fool proof rationalization for the defection of Obama supporters to Walker. Not by any means. So, the unknown goes to the question: How many of those 60% defected from Obama and voted for Walker?

A better question to ask is: (Hey, Gary) Why was the question worded in that way? If these professional pollsters really wanted to know the effect of the recall process on the vote, they would have asked: “Do you believe Walker was guilty of misconduct in office?”. If that was what they wanted to know, why not just ask it. I am not a professional pollster but I know an open ended question when I see one. But, ABC has the money and organization to ask the questions and that is the question they chose to ask. Was the “unknown” quality we are faced with designed to be a rationalization for the Walker win? I don’t know. I only know that, for professional pollsters, they sure ask the wrong questions.

So, we are still left with our unknown for which there is no statistical answer – “how many people who felt blurry with the statement Walker had “committed misconduct in office” defected from their stated preference for Obama to vote for Walker in the recall election? Thanks to the mysterious, open ended question we can only take a stab at the answer, but surely we cannot assume that no one felt Walker had NOT committed misconduct in office and use it as a over reaching rationalization for his win…OR has that already been done?

We do know Walker got 55.2% of the vote statewide which reflects a defection from the Obama ’08 vote of 19.47%. So, Gary Langer would like us to suppose that nearly 2 out of 10 “Obama” people got up and went to the polls to vote for Walker 1) because they did not feel the Governor “committed misconduct in office”, or 2) to voice their strong opposition to the recall process. I find those reasons very unlikely, but you can believe anything you want. Thanks for the stupid question, Gary.

A Bigger and Better Question

But how about this question that the pollsters did not and will not look at: Why was this opposition to recalls so unique to certain wards and municipalities in mostly rural parts of the state? (Gary?) If you want to believe the “don’t like recalls” rationalization, wouldn’t you suspect it could be charted in a logical pattern? Look at the sample information of the huge defection from Obama in isolated municipalities above. How do all the people at ABC, who ask such open ended questions, hope to account for that? A 70% defection in Montana Township in Buffalo County? Boy, they must really “not like” recalls!

The latest statistical analysis from Richard Charnin NOT from ABC

This is the latest statistical analysis of election fraud from Richard Charnin (pictured right) who predicted what the fraud factor would look like ten days before the June 5 election. Now he is creating a model which will boil it down to the Municipality:

“I just created a Muni Recall True Vote model based on the elections.xlsx data. It uses the 2008 Presidential and 2012 Recall recorded votes. This is just a quick, first-cut. I will be adding improvements over the next day or two.” Richard Charnin’s latest Municipal Recall True Vote Model

You can look at any ward, municipality, or village in Wisconsin and prove to yourself how the recorded vote in the June 5 Recall election is not only “hinky” or “smelly” – it is not statistically possible.

Prove election fraud for yourself. Have Fun!

True Vote Model by Municipality – Defection from Obama’s ’08 vote to Walker in Recall Election

30 years is enough – Calling for the Resignation of Kevin Kennedy

Finally something both parties can agree on

Kevin Kennedy presents as an even keeled, likeable fellow who could easily be cast into the part in an old episode of “Murder She Wrote”, where he might be aptly described as a well meaning but fumbling character whose incompetence has been long overlooked and accepted only due to his ability disarm his opponents by sheer inactivity and thus leave his adversaries retreating out of prolonged boredom. The personae of “Mr. Nice Guy” has nestled him comfortably, over three decades, into the cocoon of complacency that has become the Government Accountability Board (GAB).

Kennedy has created a culture of suspicion and defensiveness among the county clerks throughout the state, and rather than ushering in the sunlight of transparency, he has positioned himself and the GAB as the leader of the promulgation of rules and postures designed to block the democratic process on the county and municipal level. Kennedy is seen as the defensive team captain to call on to create plays to block requests for open records information and examination. His leadership has instilled a fear into the hearts minds of local elected officials that the process of elections in the state are to go unquestioned, and if questioned they are to go unanswered.

The call for Kevin Kennedy to resign is not based solely on his impassive and incompetent response to turmoil raised in the Supreme Court election or the recalls of the past year and a half, but on his nature to shuffle, obfuscate, and delay any proceeding or investigation that does not fit his “do it my way” administrative fault of three decades! The early warning message of this fault was first sounded in 2007, well before the GAB was created and Kennedy was in the earliest stages of creating his dynasty of derision that began 29 years ago on August 17 1983, during the term of Dem Governor, Tony Earl.

December 26, 2007
Accenture Suit

The State of Wisconsin entered into a contract on November 12, 2004 with the global outsourcing firm Accenture to develop a statewide voter registration list. Under the contract, Accenture was to be paid $13.9 million for computer software development and maintenance. Subsequent changes to the agreement boosted the figure to $14.1 million.

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s director and other citizens seeking cancellation of the contract on the grounds that state Elections Board director Kevin Kennedy lacked legal authority to sign the Accenture contract. The Elections Board did not vote to approve the contract before it was signed, and did not vote to authorize a Request for Proposals soliciting bids from private vendors.
Posted: April 19, 2005
Updated: January 18, 2008

UPDATE: The state Elections Board announced December 26, 2007 that an agreement was reached ending the state’s contract with Accenture to create a computerized statewide voter registration system. The Democracy Campaign fought the arrangement for three years, and that fight ended with Accenture being given its walking papers.

Kennedy was an early proponent of privatization, and of all the possible pit falls of that pursuit, he sought privatization of our elections, placing the most golden right of the people into the hands of private corporations like Command Central. Your vote was privatized by low profile entities that have no oversight by any elected official or government agency – local, state, or federal. Voting machines contracted for by Kevin Kennedy are computers that count votes. Computers function through programing. The programing that counts your vote is considered proprietary; a trade secret.

Kennedy’s privatization of the vote count was enabled by contracts with voting machine vendors like Command Central, that give the corporation the power of the purse over the decision making of elected officials like your local county clerk.

Case in point

A discovery was made in Crawford County. Memory cards that hold the programing for the vote count in the June 5 recall election were sent back to the vender, Command Central, on June 14; a week before state statutes dictate that election materials are to be kept “secure”. A opens records request was filed to have them returned and read as an assurance they had not been altered or swiped. Command Central was given the power to dictate how the information would be provided as sent in an email for the Crawford County Clerk:

Mr. Kerns –
In your latest e-mail you advised that you would be providing $200 for the downloading of information from one election cartridge. This information will be downloaded by Command Central onto a CD which will then be provided to you after you have selected which municipality that you want the information downloaded from. Corporation Counsel has already advised you that this would be the procedure that would be followed. This should then satisfy your open records request.
Please be further advised that any correspondence in this matter will only be addressed with you. I will not be responding to any other e-mails that I receive from other parties.
Please advise me as soon as possible if it still your intention to come to my office today so that arrangements can be made.

After it was discovered that Crawford County had sent back memory cards before the 21 day period when they were to be kept secure [GAB 5.02 WI stats. 7.23(1)(g)], forty-five Wisconsin Counties, who use Command Central’s SEQ-AVC Edge II DRE touch screen machines, were sent open record requests to inspect the memory cards for each polling place in each county under [WI stats. 19.31-19.39]. It was further discovered that 23 counties had sent back memory cards early. Not only were the memory cards vacated from the County Clerks’ offices but they were sent out-of-state to Command Central’s office in St. Cloud, Minnesota. In the end, Command Central was empowered to threaten counties with over $345,000 in penalties if they were to follow open records requests.

FOIA Open Records Requests were Ignored, Minimized, and Dismissed

Initially, the Government Accountability Board and Administrator Keven Kennedy rushed to the defense of the clerks and issued 15 rules of engagement with citizens, authorizing the use of tactics such as charging citizens for staff time to inspect records, forbidding them to touch the materials, and 13 other practices to make it near impossible for citizens to confirm election results without a huge bank account, and all the equipment of a CSI episode.

Then the State Attorney Generals office, slapped the hands of Kevin Kennedy and the clerks of Wisconsin with an “Urgent Memorandum” stressing that the FOIA Act was not a small claims court issue, and that Kennedy and the GAB had no legislative authority and that state election law did not apply.

The Crawford County Independent covered the story and not only did Kevin Kennedy not return a call for comment, he also advised Command Central to hold comment on the early send back issure.

Chad Trice, Command Central’s Vice-President, said there were limits on the comments he could make about election security regarding the cartridges.

“The GAB has instructed us to not comment on this specifically,” Trice said when asked about the security used to ensure election programming was accurate and unaltered
Not all election materials kept after election – Article in the Crawford County Independent

30 years – too long for an oversight administrator

The prevailing attitude is that two terms or more may be too long for a legislator. 30 years for the administrator of an oversight agency is an eternity. Kevin Kennedy has developed his network of control for three decades, telling vendors what to say to whom, and pontificating policy to county clerks on how to avoid the hassle of open records requests. His administration of policies for counting the vote have resulted in a system that is a messy network of multiple vendors of machines of various varieties across the state in a confusing maze of touch screens and scanners that vary by county, ward, and within wards – all of these with no oversight of the programing that operates the count.

His policies have erupted in complaints of vote fraud by Republicans and election fraud by Democrats, open, ripped, and torn vote bags, and chain of custody issues in every election. All the while, the even keeled and likeable Kevin Kennedy either says nothing or he warns the “fraud finders”, of either party, to follow his example and just be quiet; that they are jeopardizing the confidence of the Wisconsin voter with their chorus of “Fraud!”.


It is not the people who cry “fraud!” who are to blame for a lack of confidence in the integrity of their vote in election after election. It is the culture of derision, and the policy of privatization and secrecy Kennedy has nurtured in his 30 year tenure of Administrator of the Elections Board and the GAB.

Thanks for your service. It is time to turn over the reigns to transparency, integrity, and fresh young blood

How Walker Stole the Recall Election

“Unusually High” vote count in rural areas

Many rural counties showed a sharp shift to the right in the June 5 Recall election that left many people scratching their heads, “How is this possible?”. I am from Crawford County, and like so many other rural counties that voted strongly democrat in recent elections, Crawford County went for Walker by +100 votes. This was a curiosity that sent me to the County Clerk’s office in Prairie Du Chein to get a look at more information that was not displayed on the election web site, and I learned the election materials had already been send back to the machine vendor, Command Central, before the time prescribed by state statutes. You can read any number of the recent posts on this blog to learn more about the experience of trying to chase a greased pig with one arm tied behind your back.

Today, I want to talk to you about how the June 5 Recall election was stolen. Usually, Republicans could “count on” Kathy Nicholaus, the County Clerk of Waukesha County to “find” 7000 votes as she did in the Supreme Court Election. Since then, her little trick of writing her own programing and keeping it on her personal computer, has cost the tax payers of that county a quarter of a million dollars to reprogram the software for counting votes. Kathy was under the magnifying glass so a new plan was badly needed.

The problem with figuring out how and where votes were flipped isn’t immediately apparent. It takes days and weeks of looking at the “scratch your head” incidences, and pulling them all together for a larger picture. Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was one of the first to report the “rural shift”, eleven days after the election, in his June 16 article

In high-stakes Wisconsin elections, it often feels like the fiercest fighting occurs along the Milwaukee to Madison corridor.

That’s where the state’s three biggest counties are: Milwaukee, Dane and Waukesha. It’s where the state’s capital and largest city are. It’s where the geographic base of each party is. And it’s the most combative, media-intensive, politically polarized part of Wisconsin.

But that’s not where Gov. Scott Walker carved out his historic recall victory.

In geographic terms, the big story of the state’s June 5 election was Walker’s striking performance outside the Milwaukee and Madison media markets.

In demographic terms, it was Walker’s rural landslide. Craig Gilert Article in WSJ

Little did he know how he had put his finger on the pulse of monster whose tentacles curled into the most unsuspecting villages and hamlets of the Wisconsin countryside. I was personally attacked by this creature in the halls of the County Clerks office in Prairie Du Chein and was caught between releasing the county from an open records request to hold memory cartridges with official vote tally or held responsible for enraging the taxpayers with a $12,400 bill by the private corporation Command Central.

The Recall vote was not stolen by the “usual suspects” in Waukesha, Delafeild, or Milwaukee but in the rural counties like Crawford, Buffalo, Adams, and Trempealeau. The steal was not to find 7,000 votes in one city, but to chip and chisel a few votes here and there from rural areas throughout the state. It would take a statistical genius to uncover and present the numbers to expose this pick-a-little-hack-a-little strategy. Little did they know about the statistician extraordinaire, Richard Charnin.

Richard, who is not even from Wisconsin but resides in Florida, began working. You see, he had predicted the outcome of the June 5 election with his numbers on May 26 or eleven days before the election. That’s pretty good.

True Vote Model

The base case assumption in the 2012 Wisconsin Recall True Vote Model is that Obama had a 60% vote share is conservative. He had 63.3% in the Wisconsin exit poll (2545 respondents) but only a 56.2% recorded share, far below the 2.4% margin of error. There is a virtual 100% probability that Obama’s True share exceeded 60%. In other words, the 2008 election was extremely fraudulent, but not enough to cause Obama to lose.

Unlike final national and state exit polls that are adjusted to conform to the recorded vote and implicitly assume zero fraud, the True Vote Model is based on a feasible estimated turnout of previous election voters and best vote share estimates of returning and new voters.

The model calculates various scenarios (“sensitivity analysis”) of 2008 election voter turnout in 2012 based on the 2008 a) recorded vote, b) unadjusted exit poll or 3) estimated True Vote.

What does this portend for the recall?
Three scenarios:

1) Fraud: Walker wins by a similar margin as he did in 2010 (125,000 votes)
2) Fraud: But not enough to steal the election. Barrett wins by 70,000.
3) No fraud. Barrett wins by at least 160,000.

The latest statistical analysis from Richard Charnin

This is the latest statistical analysis of election fraud from Richard Charnin (pictured right) who predicted what the fraud factor would look like ten days before the June 5 election. Now he is creating a model which will boil it down to the Municipality:

I just created a Muni Recall True Vote model based on the elections.xlsx data. It uses the 2008 Presidential and 2012 Recall recorded votes. This is just a quick, first-cut. I will be adding improvements over the next day or two. Richard Charnin’s latest Municipal Recall True Vote Model

Look at the the Recall Results by minicipality

I took the liberty of taking a screen shot of Crawford County as seen below. (Richard frowns on this but I wanted to give you an idea of what you will find for your ward, town, or municipality when you look at the spread sheet. This is number art revealing the sheer beauty of statistical analysis!

The first shot shows the votes for Obama and McCan in the 2008 presidential election.

So below are the cut and pasted screen shots from Crawford County.

The second shot shows the reported vote for Walker and Barrett and the blue column shows the percentage of the Barrett vote.

The third shot shows the numbers you will not find in your county clerk’s office. It shows the True Vote, as described above, in the yellow column. The blue column shows he voter turn out that would be necessary to arrive at those numbers. The last “pink” column shows the percentage in shift that would be necessary from those who voted for Obama in ’08 but showed up to vote for Walker on June 5. For instance, you see that over one third of the folks who voted for Obama in ’08 in Bridgeport or Lynxville would have needed to defect and vote for Walker on June 5.

If you can rationalize that shift, look at Ferryville where nearly half the of voters defected from Obama to Walker.

You can look at any ward, municipality, or village in Wisconsin and prove to yourself how the recorded vote in the June 5 Recall election is not only “hinky” or “smelly” – it is not statistically possible.

Prove election fraud for yourself. Have Fun!

True Vote Model by Municipality – Defection from Obama’s ’08 vote to Walker in Recall Election

Crawford County Independent News – FOIA Request

This is a copy of an article in the July 18 edition of the Crawford County Independent newspaper. The headline in hard print –

(The above illustration did not appear with the article)

“Resident requests to view voting machine cartridge”

Please comment. Email address for the Crawford County Independent:

Not all voting materials kept after election
Digital records under different rules?
Crawford County Independent Article
POSTED July 18, 2012 11:08 a.m.

How far can an open records request go with digital data and is it far enough?

One local activist is attempting to find out the answer to the first half of that question. However, he believes that he may know the answer to the second half of the question and that’s ‘not far enough’.

Gays Mills resident Dennis Kern’s questions began when he learned that the cartridges used in the electronic voting machines, which contain the encrypted tabulations of electronically cast ballots, were not kept in Crawford County for the required 30 days after the election. State law requires that election materials be held for the 30-day period. After 30 days, the information is destroyed unless there is a contested election, recount or litigation pending.

Kern filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with Crawford County Clerk Janet Geisler requesting the return of the cartridges for inspection. Open record laws give requesters the right to inspect any government record.

“It was political decision,” Kern said. “I was looking at the fact that Crawford County voted for Barrett in the first governor’s election and Shilling in the Kapanke-recall election and vastly voted in favor of Obama in the presidential election. The expectation was that Democrats would win the governor’s recall. Yet, Walker won by over a 100 votes in the recall. I was curious about why Crawford County would suddenly shift. I wanted to see more documentation and records than were available than online.”

When he sought to examine the records, he learned the cartridges had already been returned to a vendor for reprogramming for the upcoming primary, He requested they be made available for inspection.

Geisler complied with the FOIA request and the cartridges were returned by the vendor to Crawford County.

Why did they need returning in the first place? The vendor, a firm called Command Central, is based in Waite Park, Minnesota, near the Twin Cities. Command Central offered to store the cartridges between elections and Geisler accepted their offer. So, the cartridges were sent back after certification of the election by the Board of Canvassers.

In Geisler’s view, which is backed by the Government Accountability Board (GAB), this is not in conflict with the open records law. A paper record of electronic ballot votes is printed as they are made and it’s the paper record that is kept and reviewed in the event of a recount.

“I spoke to the state counsel for the G.A.B.,” said Geisler. “They have a different reading of the law than Kern and don’t see returning the cartridges early to Command Central as a problem.”

“Geisler asked me if I was going to make them get them back,” Kern said. “I felt it was right to insist that they be handled the same as the rest of the election materials. The law requires election materials be kept to ensure they are not tampered with. Janet got all the materials back. I asked if there was a means of reading them to ensure they had not been swiped or altered.”

The answer was no. The Open Records law has a few provisos.

According to Wisconsin Statute 19:35 (2)(e) “Except as otherwise provided by law, any requester has a right to receive from an authority having custody of a record which is not in a readily comprehensible form a copy of the information contained in the record assembled and reduced to written form on paper.” And in 19:36 (4) “A computer program … is not subject to examination or copying … but the material used as input for a computer program or the material produced as a product of the computer program is subject to the right of examination and copying.”

Kern can have a copy of the tabulations made by Command Central, but he cannot directly view them by reading the cartridge.

The cartridges exist in something of a legal morass. They contain information that is subject to the Open Records Law, but exist within a medium protected by intellectual property laws. The encryption programming is neither state property nor it appears is it subject to public scrutiny.

“Command Central offered to make a CD of the results for him (Kern),” Geisler said. “But, we cannot allow anyone to download the information on the cartridges.”

Geisler’s decision was based on the recommendations of the GAB.

In addition to the clauses in the Open Records statute, case law has already upheld that a public entity performing a state function involving digital information has some say in what they reveal. According to the Sunshine Review, a non-profit group that focuses on state and local transparency in government, the case of WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex determined that “records requests for records in digital form need not be delivered, nor should be delivered through allowing the requestor to view the original database, but can be delivered in any electronic format.”

“I was perfectly capable of downloading the information,” Kern said. “That was when Mark Peterson, the corporate counsel for Crawford County, called me and told me that the county would be charged $200 per cartridge. He was then told they could not be downloaded. The cartridge (pack) would have to go back to Command Central and they would download the information and provide the evidence that it had not been altered. That’s a bit like the police asking the murderer to provide the weapon for evidence in an investigation.”

Kern maintains that the protections limiting the viewing of election programming leaves their integrity at risk.

The physical integrity is easy to determine. Geisler bags and seals every pack in a sealed bag, sorted by precinct.

“I receive the voting machine cartridges from Command Central through Speedy Delivery and they are placed in my vault,” Geisler described. “Each municipality has a zippered pouch for the cartridges. The bags are sealed with numbered security ties. Before I seal the bags, I place a card inside of the pouch with the number from the security seal. The clerk must initial the card that is inside the pouch, which states that the seal on the zippered bag matches the number on the pouch.”

Chad Trice, Command Central’s Vice-President, said there were limits on the comments he could make about election security regarding the cartridges.

“The GAB has instructed us to not comment on this specifically,” Trice said when asked about the security used to ensure election programming was accurate and unaltered.

However, he was willing to comment on the physical custody of the materials.

“There is a chain of custody,” Trice said. “When it comes back to us it goes into inventory and is not touched unless we have to make a copy for an FOIA request.”

“The packs are encrypted, so anyone couldn’t just read them,” Trice explained. “Technology is constantly changing. We try to keep enough packs on hand for everyone without overstocking because the equipment requirements change. If municipalities had to use new media every election, it would be prohibitively expensive.”

That expense became a concern for Crawford County after Kern made his FOIA request. His desire to read the disks directly to ensure that information was not altered and the denial by Geisler left the clerk in a position where a determination of whether she had made a reasonable effort to meet the request.

“I certainly feel I have been very fair to Mr. Kern and have made every attempt to accommodate his requests,” Geisler stated. But to be safe, she was keeping the cartridges in her vault pending a determination by either the county counsel or the GAB’s General Counsel and President Kevin Kennedy.

If it was determined that having the cartridges present for a physical inspection was inadequate, or if it were but Kern challenged the determination, Geisler would have to hold them for an additional 60 days while the issue was resolved.

That raised a new issue. Another election was looming, a primary election is scheduled for Aug. 14, and Command Central wanted their cartridges back to be reprogrammed. They set a deadline of July 16 for them to be returned. If not returned, Command Central would charge the county $12,400 for new cartridges.

Some costs relating to meeting a FOIA can be recompensed through charging fees to the requestor. Until the June 27, 2012 ruling by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, some record custodians believed a 2002 ruling expanded their authority to impose fees on public records requesters. Governor Scott Walker’s office had even asserted the right to “charge the actual necessary and direct cost of removing confidential information” from his office’s records.

The ruling of a few weeks ago recognized that it is the Legislature’s role, not its own, to establish public policy in this area. It said the Legislature “carefully provided” authorization to charge for four specific tasks — reproduction, photographic processing, location and mailing, but chose not to authorize any charge for time spent redacting information. The court “declined to expand the range of tasks for which fees may be imposed.”

This ruling would seem to mean that the cost of replacing the cartridges would be born primarily by the county.

Recognizing the difficulty this created, Kern chose to rescind his request on Monday, July 16.

As of Monday, Geisler with Kern’s decision to retract his FOIA request was able to send the cartridges back to Command Central. It is expected the Minnesota firm will reprogram the cartridges and send them back to the county in time for the primary election on Tuesday, Aug. 14.

“It is clear that Command Central is subverting open records requests by imposing exorbitant fees that will force clerks to send your vote tally back to Command Central to be burned,” Kern stated in his online blog.