Reporting.
In progress.
Commissioner Raible.
Here.
Mr. Spindle.
Here.
Commissioner Thompson.
You're.
All members of the commission.
Our present administrator.
Wolfe. Has this meeting been
properly noticed?
Yesterday's meeting was noticed in
accordance with Wisconsin's open
meeting laws.
Thank you.
I ask that this meeting be put
on our calendar
primarily to address
the recent information that came to
light regarding
the discovery
by Madison officials,
City of Madison officials of 200
ballots that were not.
Tallied were not accounted for.
And it started it, I
believe, December 20th
or so or December 19th,
when the commission first discovered
that this was even an issue.
And as is set forth in our
materials, you'll see sort of the
timeline of
what our staff
discovered and what they tried
to figure out.
We then.
As is also in the materials that
some of the appendices received
statements from the Madison
City Attorney and the Madison Clerk.
I asked our
staff to answer the question
of whether and what authority
we had as a commission
to instigate
our own investigation
into this matter.
We are the final canvas.
We are the final arbiters
of the votes in
the state of Wisconsin.
And we needed
to know why those.
Ballots weren't accounted for and
weren't included in our
canvass.
The integrity of the election
process is important,
and we needed to
know and understand this White House
staff what authority do we have to
investigate and
what does that look like?
And what you have
in front of you is a memo
from staff summarizing the answer
to that question
and also summarizing the things
that we can do
as a commission.
And I want to be clear that this
was at my instigation and request
that there is no position of staff
one way or another on what
we should do or whether we should do
it, but rather this is an answer to
my very specific question.
The sum total of the information
we have.
As to the matter of these missing
ballots is contained in this memo.
This is literally everything we
know.
If you include those appendices,
we have no additional information.
And that's why I think an
investigation is important.
I also thought it was very important
that this commission convene as a
group to
address this important issue.
And I also thought it was important
that we do so formally
and that we do so following
our powers and the available
statutes.
Sometimes we address things that are
more just
a matter of exchanging a few
documents or a few calls.
We've certainly done it that way in
the past.
But given the seriousness
of what happened here,
our lack of
knowledge, information
that was not given to us in a timely
fashion, I think
we need to do something more.
Formal.
And
and the like.
So I
asked counsel
for the WC to tell us the answer
to what can we do and how do we do
it?
And I'm going to ask Attorney
Sharp to give us that introduction.
And again, procedurally,
today's meeting is simply, do
we want to investigate?
And my suggestion obviously, is I
think we should.
My other suggestion was that we
do a two member
bipartisan drafting
of what those questions and
document requests look like.
And I
would suggest that Don and I simply
draft those.
Drafted more discovery
that our our esteemed staff counsel
and we have templates for these sort
of things and can probably get that
out very quickly
and also that we
make public.
What it is we're asking for.
In other words, that this process
be transparent
so that the public knows that we are
working on this.
What we're asking for
and so that we can make sure
that folks understand how seriously
we're taking this.
So I'm going to begin by asking
attorney Schaap to summarize what
we are allowed to do and what that
process looks like.
Thank you, Chair Jacobs and good
morning, Commissioners.
The memo for this agenda item begins
on page three of your materials
and is accompanied by attachments
A through F.
So as the chair said, this
discussion does pertain to the
193 absentee
ballots that the city of Madison
did not count during the November
5th, 2024 general
election.
And I do want to reiterate at the
outset that the commission staff
have verified independently
that these uncounted absentee
ballots did not impact any federal,
state or local race or
referenda on the ballots in
question.
So if it's okay with you, Chair
Jacobs, I'd first like to start by
providing an overview of how
this situation first came to
commission staff's attention, and
then I can provide a summary of the
statutes that govern the
Commission's investigation
authority.
Please do so.
Okay.
So on the afternoon of
December 18th, 2020, for
the City of Madison, Clerk's Office
staff contacted commission staff
to request assistance with
entering their reconciliation data
from ballots cast during the
November 5th general election.
The City of Madison explained that
they had realized that two of their
wards had absentee ballots
that were not processed on Election
Day.
This meant that their total ballots
issued number did not match
their voter participation numbers,
meaning they had more ballots
recorded as received than
ballots counted.
The City of Madison staff sought the
commission staff's assistance
with entering and recording the
uncounted ballots in the statewide
voter registration system.
And it appeared that the primary
purpose of the initial outreach from
the city clerk's office was
data entry system assistance,
not solely to notify the commission
of the uncounted ballots during this
election.
The next day, on December 19th,
Commission staff requested a call
with the City of Madison Clerk,
the Madison City Attorney, and
relevant members of their staff in
order to gather additional
information.
On December 20th, that
call took place and commission
staff requested
that Clark Witzel Bell provide a
detailed statement regarding the
uncounted absentee ballots,
including how many ballots were
uncounted and when the clerk's
office first discovered these
errors.
Markowitz LaBelle provided a
statement to commission staff
on Monday, December 23rd.
And I will note, even though the
memo that was provided with the
clerk's office press release was
dated December 20th, it was received
by commission staff on December
23rd.
On December 26th, Clerk
Wetzel Bell's office issued a press
release disclosing the uncounted
ballot situation to the public, and
the mayor also issued her statement.
And then also on December 26th, as
chair, Jacobs said she directed
commission staff to prepare
a memorandum outlining the legal
process for the commission
so it could consider opening an
investigation pursuant
to Wisconsin Statute 5.06
subsection four.
So the purpose of the investigation
would be to create a complete
record of what transpired
so that the city of Madison can
implement improved policies
and so that all Wisconsin clerks
can benefit from understanding how
to avoid similar issues in the
future.
So Wisconsin law does expressly
permit the commission on its own
motion to investigate and determine
whether any election official with
respect to any matter concerning
election administration or conduct
of elections, whether that official
has failed to comply with the law
or has abused the discretion vested
in him or her or intends to do
so.
After such an investigation,
the Commission is authorized to
summarily decide the matter and
may by order require
any election official to conform
his or her conduct to the law
to restrain them from taking any
action inconsistent with the law,
or to require the official to
correct any action or decision
that is inconsistent with the law.
And if that language sounds
familiar, your note that the order
that would be issued for
after an investigation is the same
type of order and decision that the
Commission would issue to resolve
a 5.06 complaint.
So if the Commission does choose to
authorize an investigation, the
remainder of the memo in your
materials outlines the areas
of inquiry that staff
compiled as likely to result
in pertinent information given the
subject matter.
So given all of that, I'm happy to
answer any questions, but I will
turn the remainder of the discussion
back over to Chair Jacobs for this
agenda item.
Are there questions for Attorney
Sharpe regarding what
the process would look like for an
investigation, our authority,
anything like that?
Mr. Spindle?
Yes. I was just wondering
in terms of
why we want to do an investigation
as opposed to taking
a complaint on
this.
And what the difference
would be in terms of
doing the investigation versus doing
the staff work
on the complaint?
So that that's a fair question.
And that was part of the discussion
that I had late December
with staff.
And my inclination
was that this was such
a serious oversight.
And.
I didn't want to wait for a
complaint.
I felt it was important that the
Commission act promptly
and also that we use the powers
that we have to get
out the information we want.
Because remember, in a complaint
process, we get a complaint, we
send it to the respondent
to give us some reply
or response to it.
That response may not have the
answer to the questions we want.
And I have real questions about
what all happened here.
That would probably be broader
than what would be raised
in a complaint.
And I would want to know those
answers sooner rather
than later.
Some of it is just speed.
I thought this was so egregious that
it was important we we
move immediately.
Mr.. Thompson And then based on
the.
No, I think this is a good
idea. And and in response
to Commissioner
Bandele, Dell doesn't preclude a
complaint being filed at all.
It just gives us.
You know, a better ability to go
gather all the information.
We haven't done that before.
Is a good time to do it.
And the other thing I noted that
we got to come and I think.
From the city of Madison court
this.
I saw that in saying that they would
fully cooperate and we didn't even
have to send formal.
So, I mean, I think.
Finding out.
You know how 193
ballots didn't get counted
because there are a lot of hands on
these ballots.
And so I'm
curious how
it happened. So I
thought it was a good idea and I
think we should go forward.
Mr. Bossman.
Well, when I first started looking
at this, I think I was looking at it
from the perspective of the clerk.
And I'm thinking to myself, if if
there was some type of misstep
that happened,
it could happen in a different
municipality, a smaller municipality
or a bigger municipality.
And I just think it's important to
understand, you know, what happened,
how it happened, what
needs to be done to make sure it
doesn't happen again.
Because I look at it as
that eventually the commission
would be able to give guidance
and making sure that don't don't
miss this step in the future.
And that's how I looked at it.
I didn't look at it as a as a
complaint. If a complaint is filed,
that's fine. But I looked at it as
the position that the act
that our commission is in is
to make sure that we do
whatever we can to provide
guidance, that it doesn't happen
anymore.
And unless we find out how it
happened, I don't know that
we can give that guidance.
So I look at it as a positive
in a sense that how do
how do we move forward from this
and how do we make sure this does
not happen again in the future?
So that's how I look at it.
Mr. Mills, I saw your hand.
Yeah.
Yeah, I agree.
The legislature
was certainly concerned about the.
The investigative power
of the Government Accountability
Board when it.
Eliminate that agency and created
this agency in the Ethics
commission.
But the legislature also.
Explicitly said that the commission
in very limited circumstances and
this is one of them.
May, on its own motion,
investigate
an election official.
There are the powers.
As I read the statute, the powers of
the commission are a little bit more
limited when it's done on its own
motion than when there's a
complaint.
And I think that's fine.
My concern here is not with
the magnitude of the magnitude
is significant.
The issue is why was this
not determined or caught
by the time of either the local
campus or the county campus?
And, you know, these errors can
happen.
And it seems to me.
Knowing.
What little we do know is
my assumption is either
there was a failure to
follow procedures or
our procedures aren't good enough
and we have to correct.
And so I think one of those two
things has occurred, and I
think it's incumbent upon us to
determine that.
And I'm glad to see that the city of
Madison is now saying
that they will cooperate.
I'm a little my biggest I suppose
my biggest concern here is why it
took.
Am I going to have for this to come
on? And that's very, very
disturbing.
And I'm hoping we
can determine why that happened as
well.
Commissioner. It's been done.
You know, I just don't understand
what we're talking about in terms
of the complaint process and so
forth.
And this is brand new for us.
So I guess we've had a couple of
opportunities to do
an investigation before which did
not go through.
And I guess we we need to take a
look at is this something that we
want to get into?
Are we opening Pandora's Box by
starting to, you
know, to to do this?
And I think that
the points have been very well laid
out in terms of what's happened here
in Madison and
what's happened here in Madison
and in terms of
what we need to do going
forward. And it is taking a quite
a step in this town mentioned
one of the reasons for the gap
being dissolved in the Wisconsin
commission
starting was that the
investigation by
the GMB really
got out of hand. But I think we're
sort of limited in
this and that we're talking only
about the we're able to investigate
the actions of the
mob in terms of the.
You know, election officials.
And it seems to me that if we're
going to investigate Madison,
which in my opinion, the sins
basically were these
discrepancies not being
brought by the canvasing, either
the city or county canvasing boards
or in the 36 day delay
in terms of getting us
this information to work, we should
have been coming to us immediately.
Then I call on the commission to
investigate the same
sort of thing at the
what happened at the central count
on November 5th
and the many problems and
discrepancies which here,
you know, brought
major international media
concerns as well as
the Trump campaign, Republican Party
concerns in terms of what took place
there with the results
not being reported until 4:35
a.m..
So I think if we do
if we do one, then
we need to,
you know, to do both.
Commissioner Thompson then based on.
The.
You know, I think Commissioner
Mandela.
The.
You imply that
Milwaukee because the count came
in at four
something in the morning,
had something to do with something
inappropriate.
Well, we all know there
was legislation pending that wasn't
signed that would allow
people to start that process early.
There. There is no similarity
between what had happened
in Milwaukee and in Madison.
I think that what we have on
the table is
a proposal to investigate Madison.
I think we should do it.
If there's a complaint that comes in
on Milwaukee, it's
there. But I don't think we should
mark up the process we should get
at.
I mean, Donna's really right that
when we when I first heard about it,
I go like, you know, I didn't know
how it could happen
that, you know, 193 days,
I mean, 193 ballots.
And it was like.
I mean, that should have been picked
up at the canvass.
And so, as
Mark said, we got to find out what
happened. So if we we need better
guidance, we need to do
it or as Don said, you know, figure
it out. And I
don't think it serves
out the bigger picture, Bob,
to throw Milwaukee in
and start 2025 in
that kind of partizan manner.
Anyway, so that's my comment.
Mr. Boss? WOMAN
Well, I still look at this
probably as, maybe as a bigger
picture, maybe from a Clerks
perspective.
But I see this as being procedural
and I see this as something that can
happen
somewhere else, even though it's
never happened before.
And I think it's just important that
if there is a safeguard, if there's
a guidance that we need to give to
make sure that that this doesn't
happen again, I think it's important
that we find out how how it happened
and what we need to do to give that
guidance.
I don't look at this as a as a blame
anybody. I'm looking at this from
the perspective of how do we make
sure this doesn't happen again and
how do we make sure that all
the polling places in the state,
all the municipalities in the
state are following a procedure
to make sure this doesn't happen
again?
And like I say, I'm not looking at
this as a punishment or something.
We need to investigate.
We need it because of
the wrongdoing.
We need to investigate it to make
sure it could goes smooth
in the future and that we don't have
any other problems.
And that's how I look at it.
I look at it as a solution,
not an investigation.
To find wrongdoing.
I look at is an investigation to
find a solution that it doesn't
happen again.
And I think that following up on
what you just said, March, we have
an election in February.
So we we need to know
what went wrong.
Sooner rather than later.
And Bob, that's also an answer to
your question of why aren't we
waiting for a complaint?
We have about six weeks
until our next election.
So the more information we can learn
about what went wrong,
even if we're only able to send
out a quickie clerk's memo saying,
hey, there's a step here, don't
forget about it.
As we work on more formal guidance,
I think we want to do that because
certainly our February and
April elections
for judge and the like, we
we have elections that are separated
by 200 votes in
April and February.
That's that's not uncommon.
So I definitely think that
our duty to figure out what happened
and help our clerks so that
it doesn't happen again is
important.
The other thing, too, is when we've
had other mistakes
made by municipalities.
When?
Now I forget the name of the town up
north. Gave the wrong ballot to 100
people.
We knew about it.
Within minutes of it
happening, of them figuring out what
happened. We were in the loop.
We were able to work with them to
figure out the solution.
We figured out what the problem was.
We put it in our canvass
so that when we canvased at the
state level, we were able to
incorporate that.
And that sort of transparency
is just sort of missing here.
So we can't be a part of the
solution until we know what went
wrong. And and unfortunately,
we just don't right now.
There is a recommended
post.
I think Commissioner Whipple had her
hand up.
I'm sorry, Commissioner.
Please go ahead.
No, that's okay.
I was going to completely agree with
Marge and
poll worker and clerk error
happen.
This is about making sure it doesn't
happen going forward.
And I completely understand how
they wouldn't find out about it
in the canvass if
it wasn't until they started to
reconcile that they discovered
it. So I think there's there's some
process or procedure that just
needs to be corrected.
Mr.. Mills.
So I would make the recommended
motion with option number one.
I'm sorry. You're making the
recommended motion with
option one.
Option one to summarize
and return it to the commission.
Yes.
That's the motion.
Is there a second.
As a commission?
Commissioner And I saw
your hand up first Commissioner
Boston and said.
Second, is there further
discussion regarding this motion?
Commissioner Spindler.
Go ahead.
Yeah, I'd like to make a
friendly amendment
to this motion
that the Wisconsin Election
Commission authorize an
investigation pursuant to Wisconsin
Statute 5.064
to determine whether or not
the City of Milwaukee
Election Commission
executive director Paula
Gazidis and the Deputy
director, Bonnie Cheng,
has failed to apply the law
in abuse of discretion
regarding the
problems resulting in the central
count and vote not being received
to the public at approximately 4:25
a.m.
on November 6th.
Since I think that's not likely to
be agreed by when I'll second the
motion for purposes of discussion.
Right. So excited about
the math.
But so.
That's just.
A ridiculous and bizarre conspiracy
theory since we literally
knew what was
going to happen.
We put out press releases that that
was what was going to happen.
We issued statements that that was
going to happen.
We talked to national media
explaining that was
going to happen,
and we have not, I would
point out, received a single
complaint about it.
So this supposed concern,
bipartisan people about
this apparently was not so
concerning that in
the two months
give or take since that election,
nobody made a complaint,
nor is there a plausible explanation
of how.
That what could possibly
be the abuse of discretion
other than just reiterating a word
that's a foundation for it.
So I'm not going to support
that. That's a waste of our time and
energy. If someone wants to file a
complaint and allege something
specific that they think was a
violation, they're allowed
to do it. But nobody has done it.
So. Can't be that important
to folks right now.
And this isn't a tit for tat.
This is
that's not how this works.
We don't punish one person because
we're dealing with someone else.
That's just not
how this works.
I can't imagine that's how we want
it to work. Commissioner Bostrom and
I see your hand, right?
And having seconded that motion,
I would I wouldn't accept that as
friendly motion. And I would just
make the recommendation if, if
Commissioner Spindler would like
that, that he make a motion after
this one.
And that we deal with it as a
separate motion.
Hang in there.
I thought I was moving to amend
the motion.
He asked for a friendly amendment.
Correct. She seconded.
So it can't be
accepted as a friendly amendment
because she is the second dead
person.
If he wishes to move,
he can move to amend
the motion to include that.
And then we vote on the amendment
and then we return to the original
motion.
If he wishes to amend the
motion to whatever he just
read,
he can do that.
But that wasn't what he amended.
So I think merges point of order
is accepted and there is no
friendly amendment.
So there's probably American for
it as well.
I think I think what I understood
you saying is that he wants to amend
the motion. Is that right?
Mr. Smith. No, that's correct.
No, he has to make a new motion
because this motion was not
procedurally correct.
If he wants to make a new motion.
He can make a new motion.
Okay. If you'd like me to do that,
I'll be happy to do that again.
Would you like me to repeat that?
You have to put it in proper form.
Okay.
My motion with amendment to this
motion is that the Wisconsin
Election Commission, which is the
commission, authorizes an
investigation pursuant to Wisconsin
Statute 5.064
to determine whether or not the
City of Milwaukee
Election Commission executive
director Paula Lazarus
and the deputy director,
Bonnie Chang,
has failed to apply the law and
abused their discretion regarding
the
the identified problems
in the pursuit of pursuing the
central count in voting, not being
released to the public until
approximately 4:25 a.m.
on November 6th.
And
that your motion.
Came after that motion?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
We're going to follow procedure.
Is that your motion?
Don't tell me about after the
motion. Is that your motion?
Your motion to amend?
Yes, my motion to amend.
Second.
There's a second debate.
Commissioner Millis. I have a point
of order. I want to ask Attorney
Whittaker.
Are we noticed
to deal with that issue?
That was just like why I had my hand
raised and the document.
I think the commission does need to
examine whether we would be
We did essentially notice
this meeting for almost verbatim
what Commissioner Spindle read
with regard to the second
municipality. But our agenda
only contemplates the city of
Madison. And so I think it would
more likely be appropriate
under the open meetings laws
to perhaps note that that should
carry forward to the next agenda.
If the Commission functions, we can
put that for another meeting.
Okay, so I'm looking
at our open session agenda.
Item C reads, discussion
and possible action on authorization
of at 5.06 sub for
investigation of City
of Madison Clerk regarding
193 uncounted
absentee ballots for
November 5th, 2020 for general
election.
So it does not appear we
are noticed
to address
this. As to the city of
Milwaukee.
At all.
So I don't believe the commission
can hear it at this
meeting.
And expendable if you
want to be heard on.
I think you're going to tell me why
we would have the right plan.
That's why I am.
I think the whole purpose of this
meeting, from what I could read
here, was to determine whether
or not we were going to do an
investigation.
And the investigation
that's listed here happens to be
in the city
of Madison.
But the the main purpose of this
meeting, as you outlined when you
first spoke, was whether or not
the commission should do an
investigation.
So this is the important
point here, in my opinion,
in terms of whether or not
the commission is going to
move forward with a new
program basically doing
investigations such
as this in the.
So I think that's the wrong
reading of the
of the thing. I think this is
certainly open.
The fact that the commission
is going to decide whether or not to
do an investigation is the main
purpose here. And therefore, that
bringing in the city of Milwaukee
and there are several problems.
I know Commissioner
Thompson said that there was
no real problems there.
Well, you know, I don't want to go
through a list of them.
The workers showing up an hour late,
the door to the high speed counters
close to nine, but then hoping
no urgency through it.
But yet a highly experienced
staff of supervisors
is supervising the whole process.
So I think that
the investigation, the word
investigation opens this up for
additional
talk in memos and so forth
and so on.
On investigations.
Additional investigations as well.
I believe, as chair.
I have to rule that the motion is
out of order.
Because we are not properly noticed.
For.
That motion.
I just have one question and then we
move on. Is that all right?
The question Go ahead and ask your
question.
The question is to you, are you
willing to put on a future agenda,
Maybe the next one that
calling for an investigation of a
city Milwaukee Election Commission
central count situation on November
5th, 2025?
Only if I am provided with some
reason why that investigation
is needed.
In other words, if you and you you
and I can talk to each other, two
people can talk
if you want to send me specifically
what it is that you believe
warrants an investigation.
In other words, information that is
not known.
Or has not been provided
to this commission or the
press or elsewhere such
that our work on this is
required.
In other words, that there is a
mystery out there that you want
solved.
Then we can put it in front of the
commission to address.
But if it's just I don't like how
they handle things and
I want them to be
brought up in front of the
commission for some reason to
embarrass or to yell
at them or something.
That's not an effective use of
commission time.
So if you want to provide to me
some sort of statement of what it
is specifically that happened
that requires investigation
that's not otherwise available,
I am willing to consider that.
So just plan ahead on doing
that. Don't give it to anyone else.
Just a reminder we can't have
happen.
Yeah. Could I ask that maybe that I
present the information or
that the information presented to
both you and
in the town?
And basically, you.
Know, you can't do that, Bob.
You can't have three commissioners
talking about something
at a public meeting.
That's a what.
My that the City
of Milwaukee Election Commission is
not incompetent as
has been as
has been alleged.
They are very competent.
And there are major problems
that occurred during this time, in
my opinion, being an election
commissioner for 18 years in the
city of Milwaukee.
I'm going to cut you off.
It's not noticed on this.
We're not noticed on it.
And.
We're not.
You offered two.
Comments or also I'm.
Getting I'll we'll get the
information to you.
You can get me specifically what
your questions are.
It's on the record here of what I'm
telling you.
Sure. But I'm ruling that the motion
is out of order, which leaves
us with the original motion which
was set forth on page seven of our
material having chosen
option one.
Commissioner Thompson.
Yes. I moved the question.
And the question having been moved
for any objection, Hearing none,
we're going to call the vote.
Commissioner Masterman.
High Commissioner
Millis.
High.
Commissioner. People I
Missioner Spindle.
I.
Commissioner Thompson I
chair votes I
The motion is
passed.
Commissioner Millis and I will be
working today to try to get
those questions in proper form
and hopefully out by the end
of business. Today is my goal.
The next item on our agenda is put
there because we do have an election
coming up in February
and we do want to
address the
just the deadline.
So anyone who is challenging
the
nomination papers of someone has
the appropriate deadlines.
Who's presenting on this one?
That would be me, Madam Chair.
All right. Tourney would talk.
Please go ahead.
Absolutely.
Just a quick a
procedural statutory background.
So for the spring of 2025
election, we know that circulation
of nomination papers is happening
from December 1st through
January 7th.
And the commission has already
scheduled and agreed upon a time
and date of January 14th,
11 a.m., for hearing design,
nomination paper challenges and
ultimately grant ballot access to
qualifying candidates.
So following
administrative code
two, as well as some
of the timeline that
conflicts with that 990,
we have made a series of,
I don't want to call them recommendations,
but essentially determinations here
that are laid out at what we believe
the timeline to be based on all of
those issues,
the primary before the commission,
other than reviewing and
considering additional
times, would whether or not to add
a rebuttal, a final rebuttal
filing process to
from the challenger.
It has been granted for the last two
election cycles for
a more informal process
in 2024.
So the consideration of
whether or not allowed would
essentially shoehorn that one
additional filing by
in the morning of January 14th
before the commission.
So would likely look
much like it has in the last couple
of calls where the Commission
has been provided with all relevant
materials.
So they are filed in real time.
And then there is a rebuttal filed
on that morning.
We will get to those documents
immediately and add that to any
materials that we have compiled
by the Commission on 11
a.m. for that ballot access meeting.
And so I would be
happy to field any additional
questions you might have on this
process.
But that being kind of the primary
consideration outside of what have
been done in cycles prior to.
Commissioner Miller's.
And.
I would.
I guess I reluctantly agree
with the idea of having rebuttals.
Reluctance is just a frustration
with the tight statutory schedule
that we're obligated to comply with.
My only comment
on this from my primary comment is
I think that we and I thought we did
this in the past, but make it
clear that the content
of any rebuttal has to be limited
to factual
or legal arguments made by the
challengers response.
I don't I don't think we should
consider any new evidence,
any new legal arguments.
It's a rebuttal. As a rebuttal.
Your rebutting only those items
that were raised by the challenger
in the challenger's response.
I think that's a good
point because it also
minimizes the
nature and type of the response and
makes it more accessible.
And I also agree with that.
I think rebuttals are really helpful
because then we can go into our
meeting knowing what we're actually
arguing about,
because otherwise we have this
happened. No, that happened.
And the nice thing about rebuttals
is sometimes we get them and say,
Well, yeah, they're right about
these, but we're going to continue
our complaints about these others.
And I think that's been
very helpful in focusing the work
we need to do.
It has helped focus, I think, staff
presentation where they can be like,
Well, we're not dealing with these,
so we're not even going to worry
about those. That's been conceded.
We're just going to focus on that,
and I think that's been very
helpful.
Commissioner Sandel Yes, just a
quick question.
We talked about this before, that
the challenger must notify.
The candidate for whatever
of the complaint.
And then they have to show to us
that they really tried.
And we all know with computers
having problems and they forget to
put the dot in between George and
Smith, that it's
very possible that the candidate
does not get notified.
And so all of a sudden the candidate
hears about it during our
particular discussion.
And also, I think we talked at one
time about the
staff of the commission making
sure that they also
notified the candidate
to try and
make sure that that was actually
received. And it seems to me
that because of this new
process that I guess we haven't had
to have for 150 years,
that the candidates, any candidates
who are challenged should certainly
notify you of the
the chair at the appropriate
time that they want to speak
in that way, that in case
there is a rebuttal to the
challenge, the
candidate gets an opportunity
to talk about that rebuttal as
well.
And I think those are very
important aspects
of and I do not think that this is a
good idea or major
objective should be to try and get
people on the ballots and not
try and find reasons to
keep them off. And again,
why do we need to do this now?
We haven't done it for, you
know, I guess since this process
started.
Just so you know, Bob, in
the materials
is a specific deadline by which
people are required to tell us what
time they want to say that they want
to speak so that we can prepare.
That's actually in that memo.
So we do that so that everyone
knows that and they work
with deadline and they know the
deadline for doing it.
So that's one part of it.
And I think you're misunderstanding.
It's.
This is designed to figure out
what we're actually arguing about.
That's what rebuttals solve for
us.
They answer the question of what's
actually at issue in this
challenge.
And it has been my experience
more often than not that the
rebuttals we've gotten have
conceded.
That the candidate was correct
in a certain number of them,
or that they have rehabilitated
signatures and a certain number of
them and has allowed us to focus
only on those things that are not in
dispute.
And I think that's been a real
help in understanding
these.
Challenges.
You know, some of these challenges
are, you know, 300 pages.
It's really nice to know that we're
only focusing on 50.
And I think that's what rebuttal
does for us.
And and
I do think it's really been a net
positive for our meetings
on this because otherwise we wind up
with people talking.
And they're essentially doing a
rebuttal in the talking.
And that's much less
helpful and I think can
be.
And then it's just sprung on all of
us like, we just learned something
as you're speaking to us.
And I think that's
a less than ideal.
Well, I think that be we
we just had this for one election.
The first election, we did not
have that because it was too close
to to the election.
However, I think the
the thing I'm concerned about is
the challenge.
The candidate after the
challenge may not know about it.
And in that situation,
they need to have an opportunity to
know about it and to respond.
And there's just not enough time.
The the deadline is 9:00 in the
morning. We start to work it in
11.
And it just seems to me that
if we passed this.
And I would recommend to all
candidates that they.
They they put into
they put into
their request to talk
at the meeting the next
morning.
Okay. Have you read the motion, Bob,
Because it really says that they
have to serve the candidate.
Yeah, but they may.
Yeah. At 9:00 in the morning,
850 in the morning.
And then there's no provision,
as I understand, for the
let's say the candidate does
not say they want to speak the day
before.
There's no provision for the
candidate to come back and say, hey,
this is.
I don't agree with this thing or
this is not true or whatever.
Well, smart candidates are clearly
going to tell us ahead of time just
in case.
And if they choose not to, they.
They need to they need to
say that they're going to speak once
there's a challenge whether or not
oftentimes in the past
they have not the I'm not done that.
But I think.
If they're smart planning.
They need to do.
Mr..
Thompson I'd make the recommended
motion at page 65
of our materials with the.
Clarification point made by
Commissioner Miller's.
The rebuttals are clearly limited.
To items in the response
and no new facts and no new
arguments. So that's the motion.
My motion having been made.
Is there a second to that motion?
Commissioner Ribble, seconds.
Is there further discussion on that
motion?
Offer of friendly
amendment that the staff also
wants to complain is received,
makes every effort to contact the
candidate.
That is not a friendly amendment.
For what it's worth, if I may
to be, because there are some things
that are older processes and then
there are some things that Commissioner
Speedo would not be aware has been
done since we last met.
So yes, the code
does require that they
serve that on the other
party.
But we also do provide
a templated letter with all of the
information on the procedure as well
as serving the documents
to those individuals.
As part of that process.
We also warn them when
we do have a rebuttal period
on the front end of this process,
when they're initially noticed that
there is a short deadline for
rebuttal, and if they wish to file,
they're going to want to keep that
in mind.
Also, we serve that collect
honestly and obviously
staff work quite a bit of extra
hours during these procedures.
But we don't leave that first day
until we have reached someone
with, you know, whether
it be the candidate's
representative, the candidate
themselves, whoever that is.
We are calling and searching for
information to make sure we have
physically spoken to them.
If we don't get a response in
writing and then ask them to do so.
We've also trained and this is some
of the newer processes that we've
done.
We've worked with the election
administration team to ensure
that we try to better solicit
verifiable and quickly responsive
contact information from these
individuals so that we don't get
into this position where we don't
have that on record as of yet,
because in the past not everyone
submitted those and made things
harder. So all of those
are certainly part of that process.
And we did have some information in
that notice letter that said
they may not address new points of
law in a rebuttal,
but we can certainly emphasize that
in accordance with the commission's
wishes.
And so basically, you're saying you
do that anyway. You do notify
the candidate of this challenge.
We do not rely solely on the
services that that that is required
in the code.
And there are even some provisions
in the code that are built in.
If that doesn't happen, whereby if
we don't get that second copy,
we can charge to copy and send
that out. The code is a little
antiquated. It's it's contemplated
for more than anything else.
But yes, we absolutely
do not believe that first day
because time is of the essence until
we have spoken with someone
in that two hour time frame.
Correct. To get within that initial
time frame of that first day when
it's filed.
Is there further discussion and the
motion?
Hearing that. I'll call the vote.
Commissioner Miller's.
Okay.
Commissioner Ribble, I
am sure spendable.
Commissioner, I'm sorry.
You voted no. Commissioner Spindle.
That's correct.
Okay.
Commissioner Thompson.
I.
Your when I chair
votes, I motion carries five one.
So all those persons out there
who are candidates or working with
candidates, you now know the drill.
Any other There are no other
matters we are on notice for.
Is that correct? Administrator Will.
All right, then I will entertain a
motion to adjourn.
So moved.
Moved by Commissioner Thompson,
seconded by Commissioner Swindell.
I'll call the roll.
Commissioner Ribble.
I.
Mr. Spindle and
Mr. Thompson I.
Michele Bachmann.
I.
Commissioner Miller's chair
votes. I thank you all.
We are adjourned.
See you in 12
days.
But.