Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

Are you under the impression that petitions are a new thing in america??

The effort to recall Inland Assemblyman Anthony Adams collapsed Friday because of a lack of valid voter signatures, the secretary of state's office said.

Adams, R-Hesperia, became a target of the John and Ken radio show and some conservatives because of his February vote to raise taxes temporarily to address the state's budget problems.

Last month, recall supporters turned in 58,384 voter signatures -- far more than the 35,825 needed. Organizers said they had pre-verified the signatures to make sure enough would be valid. Even Adams said he expected a recall measure to qualify and was preparing to fight it.

But random sampling showed that only 24,579 of the signatures were valid -- just 42.1 percent of the total turned in. The validity rate of signatures from San Bernardino County was a paltry 34.9 percent.

--Jim Miller

If there are enough signatures, the election takes place the first Tuesday 6 weeks after the recall is certified.

Quote:

If there are enough signatures, the election takes place the first Tuesday 6 weeks after the recall is certified.

Which can be delayed by a judge if more time is needed to verify signatures...

Judges won't be involved AFTER the signatures are verified and the recall is certified as valid.

The judges can NOT verify signatures hawkeye.

Quote:

The judges can NOT verify signatures hawkeye.

they can however overrule the timeline that the legislature set up..and with so much national interest and money in this battle, not to mention legal fire power, this is a case that may well see a outcome that is more complicated than law anticipates.

They can change the timeline but they can't change it to verify signatures.

The courts under Wisconsin law can't verify signatures in an appeal of a recall.

After the official makes a final determination on the sufficiency or insufficiency of a
recall petition for state, congressional, legislative, judicial, and county officers, the petitioner or
the officer against whom recall is sought may file a petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition with the circuit court for the county where the recall petition is offered for filing to
determine whether the petition is sufficient. The court must give the matter precedence over
other matters not given similar precedence by law. [s. 9.10 (3) (bm), Stats.]

By Scott Walker, Wednesday, March 16, 8:11 PM

Imagine the outrage if government workers did not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits. Consider the massive protests that would be staged by labor leaders all across the country.


Think I’m talking about Wisconsin? No, I’m talking about the federal government.

Contrary to what the Obama administration would lead you to believe, most employees of the federal government do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits. That means the budget reform plan we signed into law in Wisconsin on Friday is more generous than what President Obama offers federal employees.

Our reform plan calls for a 5.8 percent pension contribution from government workers, including myself, and a 12.6 percent health insurance premium payment. Both are well below what middle-class, private-sector workers pay. Federal workers, however, pay an average of 28 percent of health insurance costs.

It’s enough to make you wonder why there are no protesters circling the White House.


My brother is a banquet manager and occasional bartender at a hotel. He pays nearly $800 a month for his family’s health insurance and can put away only a little bit toward his 401(k). He would love the plan I’m offering to public employees.

As my brother recognizes, our plan is a good deal for government workers when compared with what other middle-class workers are paying for benefits. It would be a great deal for federal workers.

Nearly every state in the country is facing a large budget deficit, just like the federal government. Many states are cutting billions of dollars in funding for schools and local governments, resulting in massive layoffs or massive property tax increases — or both.

In Wisconsin, we are choosing a different way. The Wisconsin way allows local governments to balance the budget through reasonable benefit contributions. These reasonable contributions will save local governments almost $1.5 billion.

The financial savings in our budget reforms will protect 1,500 jobs this fiscal year and 10,000 jobs over the next two years. The savings come from giving state and local governments the tools to manage benefit costs through collective bargaining reform.

Some have questioned the need to reform collective bargaining. After all, they say, the union bosses in Washington said publicly that their workers were ready to pay a little bit more for their benefits. But the truth is that as the national union bosses were saying one thing, their locals were doing something entirely different. Over the past several weeks, local unions across Wisconsin have pursued contracts without new pension or health insurance contributions. Some have even pushed through pay increases.

Their actions leave one wondering how tone-deaf and out of touch union bosses are with what’s happening in the private sector. Even the president instituted a pay freeze on government workers this year, something he was able to do only because federal employees enjoy fewer collective bargaining rights than do Wisconsin workers — even with our recent reforms.

Beyond balancing budgets, our reforms give schools — as well as state and local governments — the tools to improve their operations. We allow them to reward merit and performance instead of facing the barriers of collective bargaining that all too often block innovation and reform. Because of our reforms, government will become more efficient and effective for the people.

Ultimately, our budget repair bill is about the next generation. We are making the difficult decisions now so that our children don’t have to make even more difficult choices to balance the budget we left them.

A lot of people have made their voices heard during this debate, including the president and the union bosses. But middle-class taxpayers who want a government that works for them also deserve a voice. Now they have one.

I don't see much of an argument there hawk, just a silly anecdote which doesn't say much of anything.