• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Privacy concerns stall release of WI recall signatures

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
MADISON — What’s in a million names?Wisconsin and the world were supposed to find out Monday.
Now, the Government Accountability Board, or GAB, which oversees state elections and campaigns, is reportedly holding off posting the reported 1 million signatures on petitions seeking to recall Gov. Scott Walker due to privacy concerns.
GAB spokesman Reid Magney told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday evening the board was holding off on posting the names online after hearing concerns about a stalking victim and others who did not want their names released.
=-=-=-


The board within days of the deadline for recall campaigns to turn in petitions, posted on its site the signatures from recall efforts targeting four state GOP senators — Pam Galloway of Wausau,Terry Moulton of Chippewa Falls, Van Wanggaard of Racine, and Senate Majority LeaderScott Fitzgerald of Juneau.
Magney earlier Monday said the board planned to turn over the scanned copies of the petitions targeting Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch , and post them online, sometime later this week.
What remained unanswered late Monday was why the Walker recall petitions are considered different than the others — why those names may be shielded while not the other.
Privacy concerns stall release of WI recall signatures

Shocking. Really. "Privacy" concerns only matter on the Walker recall.
 
Now c'mon Vic! You know that when the recall folks say that they have one million sigs on their petition, the people of Wisconsin are supposed to just take their word for it.
 
Now c'mon Vic! You know that when the recall folks say that they have one million sigs on their petition, the people of Wisconsin are supposed to just take their word for it.

... that's what the review board is for.

Do you also oppose private ballots? Should the names of voters be released along with who they voted for?
 
... that's what the review board is for.

Do you also oppose private ballots? Should the names of voters be released along with who they voted for?

why only make an issue of one of the recall elections though?
 
... that's what the review board is for.

Do you also oppose private ballots? Should the names of voters be released along with who they voted for?

Recall signatures aren't subject to the same privacy laws that ballots are. Recall signatures are public information accordingto WI law... Which is why the board finally made the only decision they could and posted the signatures a couple of days ago. I suspect that the board's decision to hold off was political. They got called on it, though, and had to release them.
 
why only make an issue of one of the recall elections though?

Couldn't say. Personally, I wouldn't release any of them. (if I were in charge of making that decision anyway)

Recall signatures aren't subject to the same privacy laws that ballots are. Recall signatures are public information accordingto WI law... Which is why the board finally made the only decision they could and posted the signatures a couple of days ago. I suspect that the board's decision to hold off was political. They got called on it, though, and had to release them.

This is true. However, I think the same general concerns exist with this and voting: non-political backlash against people who express their political views. Maybe some employer decides to find an excuse to terminate an employee after seeing their name on the recall petition.
 
Couldn't say. Personally, I wouldn't release any of them. (if I were in charge of making that decision anyway)



This is true. However, I think the same general concerns exist with this and voting: non-political backlash against people who express their political views. Maybe some employer decides to find an excuse to terminate an employee after seeing their name on the recall petition.

So change the law. However, based on the current law recall signatures are public information and the board had no right to delay the release. The other option is to not sign a recall petition if you are afraid of upsetting someone. The decision was made quite some time ago that the public good is served in releasing the signatures so that the information can be verified.
 
Last edited:
So change the law. However, based on the current law recall signatures are public information and the board had no right to delay the release. The other option is to not sign a recall petition if you are afraid of upsetting someone. The decision was made quite some time ago that the public good is served in releasing the signatures so that the information can be verified.

An objection was raised, they held up long enough to discuss it, then continued. It's an issue worth discussing and the GAB is exactly the group who should talk about it. I don't see the delay as being some major problem. "So change the law." Well, people need to talk about the law and figure out whether it should be changed, right?

The point I made in post #3 was to apdst's implication that the signatures were fraudulent and people wanted to hide them. The signatures are being reviewed, fraud isn't the concern here.
 
The point I made in post #3 was to apdst's implication that the signatures were fraudulent and people wanted to hide them. The signatures are being reviewed, fraud isn't the concern here.

I agree with his assertion. I also believe it is one of the reasons that the GAB didn't want to have to search the signatures for obviously fraudlent signatures until ordered to by a judge. However, in both cases, the GAB were wrong. They got called out and had no choice but to do as required by the law. It's a rather partisan group over there (appointed by Doyle), and i do not doubt some of their decisions are based on that partisanship.
 
I agree with his assertion. I also believe it is one of the reasons that the GAB didn't want to have to search the signatures for obviously fraudlent signatures until ordered to by a judge. However, in both cases, the GAB were wrong. They got called out and had no choice but to do as required by the law. It's a rather partisan group over there (appointed by Doyle), and i do not doubt some of their decisions are based on that partisanship.

Do you honestly think that the GAB was attempting to commit fraud?
 
I think, given the history of the conduct of the pro-Walker ilk, that the first bunch of people who band together because of the inevitable harassment that will come from the aforementioned ilk, should make for a pretty good class action lawsuit.

When these open record laws were enacted, no one had even imagined the possibilities of an internet.

Then, on the other hand, you will find, on occassion, some worm pop up from under a rock, the kind that supports WikiLeaks, and argue for the release of these record.

I think it should be treated much like voting. Private.

It should be interesting to see how the Madison rightwing plays this one out. They better get on the side of the people or they will be in a world of hurt. The best thing Scott Walker could do right now is to fight tooth and nail for the privacy of his political foes.
 
I think, given the history of the conduct of the pro-Walker ilk, that the first bunch of people who band together because of the inevitable harassment that will come from the aforementioned ilk, should make for a pretty good class action lawsuit.

When these open record laws were enacted, no one had even imagined the possibilities of an internet.

Then, on the other hand, you will find, on occassion, some worm pop up from under a rock, the kind that supports WikiLeaks, and argue for the release of these record.

I think it should be treated much like voting. Private.

It should be interesting to see how the Madison rightwing plays this one out. They better get on the side of the people or they will be in a world of hurt. The best thing Scott Walker could do right now is to fight tooth and nail for the privacy of his political foes.

Yeah, no chance of fraud, there.
 
... that's what the review board is for.

Do you also oppose private ballots? Should the names of voters be released along with who they voted for?

No, that would be those who support "card check". Let's see, who is that? Oh, right, the unions who are running the recall election.
 
Funny, privacy wasnt a concern with Prop 8 in California.

My belief is that petition signatures should be private but with heavy verification requirements, double and triple checking if neccessary.
 
Back
Top Bottom