Citing ‘Impossible Timeline,’ Walker Campaign Won’t File Challenge Against Recall Signatures
This decision comes a week and a half after Dane County Judge Richard Niess, who had previously granted a 20-day extension to the Walker campaign for the review period, refused their request for another two weeks.
We faced an impossible timeline, Walker campaign spokeswoman Ciara Matthews told WisPolitics. She also added: It obviously takes more time to verify signatures than it does to collect them.
-snip-
On a conference call with reporters, state Democratic Party chairman Mike Tate fired back at the Walker campaign, saying that todays move disproves the Republicans previous rhetoric alleging fraud in the signatures.
The rest is at TPM.
link:http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/citing-impossible-timeline-walker-wont-file-challenge-against-recall-signatures.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
The law gave Walker 10 days to review the signatures starting from when the petitions are filed. A judge restarted the clock until all of the Government Accountability Board (GAB) could deliver the required number of copies of the vast numbers of petitions. And then the judge granted Walker et. al. an extra 20 days for review. He denied them the further two week extension they requested 2/15 according to TPM. (The same judge gave the GAB and extra 30 days -- they have until 3/12).
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)And delay things as long as possible through any number if ways to delay things. Then they tie it up in court.
blm
(113,063 posts).
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)They don't think the Democrats have a viable opponent. Damn, I hope they find a good one to kick him to the curb.
aquart
(69,014 posts)But I'm guessing a pretty pink sock puppet would win against Walker right now.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)The landscape is littered with office holders who "couldn't win." I'm not concerned with who votes, but who counts the votes.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)They could have checked 500 and gotten a reasonably accurate understanding of the probabilities on the entire population. Seems like they'd do that 1st and if there were, say 50% bad signatures, they'd have the basis to demand the time necessary to verify all of the signatures. The fact that they didn't tells me they know they are legit. I'm surprised the Democrats didn't do a statistical analysis to see if a random sample proved they had a valid number of signatures in case they were challenged by the Republicans.