Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Calls intensify to end Wisconsin's election review amid blunders by ex-judge in charge
Politics
Calls intensify to end Wisconsin’s election review amid blunders by ex-judge in charge
By Elise Viebeck
October 14, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
The glaring errors became clear soon after a former Wisconsin judge issued subpoenas earlier this month in a Republican review of the state’s 2020 presidential election. Some of the requests referred to the wrong city. At least one was sent to an official who doesn’t oversee elections. A Latin phrase included in the demands for records and testimony was misspelled.
Michael Gableman, the former judge leading the review, admitted days later that he does not have “a comprehensive understanding or even any understanding of how elections work.” He then backed off some of his subpoena demands before reversing course again, telling a local radio host that officials would still be required to testify.
The latest round of reversals and blunders is intensifying calls to end the probe, one of several recent efforts around the country to revisit Joe Biden’s win in states where former president Donald Trump and his supporters have leveled baseless accusations of voter fraud.
{snip}
By Elise Viebeck
Elise Viebeck is a political enterprise and investigations reporter. She joined The Washington Post in 2015. Twitter https://twitter.com/eliseviebeck
Calls intensify to end Wisconsin’s election review amid blunders by ex-judge in charge
By Elise Viebeck
October 14, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
The glaring errors became clear soon after a former Wisconsin judge issued subpoenas earlier this month in a Republican review of the state’s 2020 presidential election. Some of the requests referred to the wrong city. At least one was sent to an official who doesn’t oversee elections. A Latin phrase included in the demands for records and testimony was misspelled.
Michael Gableman, the former judge leading the review, admitted days later that he does not have “a comprehensive understanding or even any understanding of how elections work.” He then backed off some of his subpoena demands before reversing course again, telling a local radio host that officials would still be required to testify.
The latest round of reversals and blunders is intensifying calls to end the probe, one of several recent efforts around the country to revisit Joe Biden’s win in states where former president Donald Trump and his supporters have leveled baseless accusations of voter fraud.
{snip}
By Elise Viebeck
Elise Viebeck is a political enterprise and investigations reporter. She joined The Washington Post in 2015. Twitter https://twitter.com/eliseviebeck
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)