Wisconsin Election Commission Is Knee-Deep in CYA Following Feds' Alert Russia Targeted State

Nothing to see here, nothing happened, but we're beefing up
security because of vulnerabilities, say Wisconsin election pols.

Clean Wisconsin elections give way to partisans and bureaucrat's hollow assurances of 'nothing to see here' after feds alert 21 states hackers targeted their systems.

Madison, Wisconsin — In November 2016, the Wisconsin Election Commission, (WEC), Chair, Mark L. Thomsen, declared there is no need for a hand recount of the Wisconsin presidential election because Thomsen said he knew the recount would not change the electoral results.

This was an inappropriate statement for the WEC Chair to make as recounts are governed by Wisconsin statutes and are supposed to guard the liberty and suffrage interests of Wisconsin citizens and candidates in assuring clean, fair and impartial elections.

Explaining his position, Thomsen said, "It, [Trump's margin of victory over Clinton in Wisconsin], may not be 22,177 [after the requested hand recount]. But I don’t doubt that the president-elect is going to win that."

Who cares what Thomsen thinks or doubts? Thomsen's was a political position, devoid of consideration of citizens' rights and interests in the electoral processes.

The right to a recall in Wisconsin was given a new, extra-statutory standard by a host of self-serving Wisconsin pols, Donald Trump and one Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn: If there is no clear evidence that a hand recount will produce a difference result, there is no need for a hand recount.

Wrote James Rowen in reaction in November 2016:

It is disappointing that the [Election] commission with no third-party representation is signaling premature and self-serving assurance while ruling out the hand recount sought by Stein, and supported by Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Worse, it reinforces the partisan cast of a state where the GOP's candidate narrowly won the state's electoral votes, and Wisconsin is run as a one-party state by an autocratic legislature in league with an imperial Governor and State Supreme Court that sacrificed its impartiality when it had a 4-3 conservative majority that has now risen to an even harder-edged 5-2 right tilt.

As noted here, Judge Bailey-Rihn, in upholding the partisan Election Commission decision, said clear and convincing evidence is needed to order a statewide hand recount over the decision of the Commission, without addressing whether voter intent remains a paramount principle underlying Wisconsin election law.

Opined John Nichols commenting on the opposition of Wisconsin pols to the requested recount:

Unfortunately, in an age of hyperpartisan spin and know-nothing media, there is a tendency to see demands for recounts as the burdensome expressions of sore losers. Sometimes they are that. But for those of us who concern ourselves with the functioning of the elections that confer authority on executives and legislators, recounts are understood as fundamental underpinnings of democracy. They only rarely overturn initial results. But even when they simply confirm those results, they give us all greater confidence in systems that can only serve their purpose if citizens see those systems as fair and functional.

The abbreviated, don't-look-too-closely recount was begun. [Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution are indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.]

Feds in 2107: Russia Hacked 21 States

Now comes news in September 2017 that Wisconsin along with 20 other states were specifically targeted by Russian cyber hackers in 2016:

WEC Administrator Michael Haas has informed WEC Chair Mark Thomsen, who directed Commission staff to investigate why election officials were not notified earlier and report to the Commission at its meeting Tuesday.

'This scanning had no impact on Wisconsin’s systems or the election,' Haas said. 'Internet security provided by the state successfully protected our systems. Homeland Security specifically confirmed there was no breach or compromise of our data.'

In 2016, Haas offered public assurances that because Wisconsin's is "the most decentralized election system" in the nation, hence safe, and that cyber-tampering would require "unfettered access" to municipalities throughout the state.

Haas is wrong. To swing a close election in Wisconsin, hackers just need access to a handful of Wisconsin's 1,853 municipalities' "Internet-facing election infrastructure." Decentralization in itself does not protect the integrity of elections.

The whole point of Jill Stein's requested hand recount was to make sure the number of ballots cast for presidential candidates matched what was tabulated in the results. But the Wisconsin Elections Commission's adamant and bizarre position was a hand recount was not needed because they knew the results already.

In retrospect, and in light of the Russia cyber-hack, does the WEC now concede Jill Stein, (and Hillary Clinton's), position that a hand recount was needed for confidence in the integrity of the 2016 electoral results?

Turns out decentralization is not such a great protection from hacking after-all, Haas now acknowledges, contradicting his 2016 position:

The Wisconsin State Journal reports today:

Meanwhile, the state is moving ahead with implementing a new election security plan by early 2018.

The challenges are particularly acute in Wisconsin, Haas said earlier Friday, where elections are not centrally run but instead handled locally by 1,853 municipal clerks. One local security breach where a key password is divulged could cause problems statewide, Haas said.

One thing the state is considering is whether to mandate that local clerks meet minimum security requirements for hardware and software they use, Haas said. 

The next Wisconsin elections will take place in the 2018 Spring Primary election in February.

Below is a reproduction of the Wisconsin Elections Commission's Sept 22, 2017 public announcement of the 2016 Russian cyber-attack.

Wisconsin Notified of Unsuccessful Russian Hacking Attempt

Date: September 22, 2017

MADISON, WI – This afternoon, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security notified the Wisconsin Elections Commission for the first time that “Russian government cyber actors” unsuccessfully targeted the state’s voter registration system in 2016.

WEC Administrator Michael Haas has informed WEC Chair Mark Thomsen, who directed Commission staff to investigate why election officials were not notified earlier and report to the Commission at its meeting Tuesday.

"This scanning had no impact on Wisconsin’s systems or the election," Haas said. "Internet security provided by the state successfully protected our systems. Homeland Security specifically confirmed there was no breach or compromise of our data."

Wisconsin is one of 21 states whose chief election officials were notified Friday by DHS officials that their systems were targeted by Russians, said Haas. DHS did not disclose which other states were notified, but said the states were free to disclose the information.

According to DHS, it appears that Internet-facing election infrastructure in Wisconsin was targeted by Russian government cyber actors. They scanned internet-connected election infrastructure likely seeking specific vulnerabilities such as access to voter registration databases, but the attempt to exploit vulnerabilities was unsuccessful.

Haas said the Commission is seeking more specific information, including when the scanning activity occurred in 2016.

The news that 21 states were targeted was first announced by DHS at a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on June 21, 2017. Coincidentally, Haas also testified at that hearing and said in response to questions that the Elections Commission had not been notified by DHS and concluded that Wisconsin was not one of the targeted states.

Wisconsin Elections Commission Under Reign of Clowns

Mark L. Thomsen, chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission,
declared the results of the Wisconsin presidential recount prior
to the recount's inception. Thomsen is the political hack Democrats
offered up for appointment to new Elections Commission.

Updated - As national political eyes cast a glance at Wisconsin, the democratic ethos in our political culture is dissipating.

With nary a beep from the moribund Democratic Party.

So, it is no surprise to read the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) (formerly the Governmental Accountability Board until its independence offended Wisconsin Republicans), decided the best way to conduct the presidential recount is to avoid ordering a rigorous and precise hand-recount in Republican-led counties, and to then offer the public prior assurance of what the recount results will be.

Wisconsin Elections Commission, (WEC), chair Mark L. Thomsen, a Democrat and doofus, declared the recount will not change the some 22,000 Trump victory margin over Clinton.

Does anyone see anything wrong with Thomsen? [Update: John Nichols has something out at The Capital Times.]

Why is the state commission chair charged with administering Wisconsin elections offering predictions and assurance on what the results of statutorily prescribed electoral recounts will be?

Because Thomsen is a political hack, who has given $10,000s to Democrats the last two years, and knows nothing about the concerns of free and fair elections activists.

Thomsen has his gig at the WEC, and his tenure will be good for his law practice so Thomsen is careful not to step on any toes with democratic niceties like the impartial administration of free and fair elections.

Republicans destroyed an independent Wisconsin elections agency last year, and Wisconsin Democrats are going along, declaring money is the currency that matters most in administering elections, and meet Mr. Mark L. Thomsen.

Clinton Allies Still Cold to Recounts, Bernie Sanders Applauds and Acclaims Civil Rights

The Recount effort in Wisconsin faced ridicule by pro-Hillary Clinton political sites, Wisconsin Republicans and Donald Trump since the inception of the successful fund-raising effort last week.

Now, an unequivocal ally, Bernie Sanders, has stepped forward. Figures.

Informed of Republican objections to the Wisconsin Recount, Sanders on Sunday bluntly replied, "Nobody cares," (NBC News).

Sanders offered several times rejoinders to objections to the recounts, fanned by Hillary Clinton sites and Republicans.

It's their "right," Sanders pointed out.

Contrast this appeal to liberty and rights with the Clintonesque, liberal response to the recount, and one can see why Bernie Sanders would have made a much stronger general election candidate than Clinton on every issue.

Democrats screwed-up badly. Told you so, and so and so, dumb Dems, as did millions of Americans.

For more information on the Wisconsin Recount, see Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution, indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.The Wisconsin Elections Commission Board (formerly the GAB) 2015-2016 calendar is also online.

Recounts in Wisconsin and Two States Go Forward

Jill Stein campaign's check on election integrity is successful

Updated - Clinton campaign attentive to concerns animating recount, vows to take part in recount effort, reports Reuters. Damn well better.
 ---
Recount petitions addressing the presidential general election in Wisconsin were received today by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, reports Steve Hanson in the Uppity Wisconsin political site.

The Jill Stein and Rocky Roque De La Fuente 2016 presidential campaigns have both filed recount petitions in Wisconsin. Recount petitions are expected to be filed in Michigan and Pennsylvania next week.

Opposition to the Jill Stein recount petition, paid by the Stein campaign supporters, has come from Wisconsin Republicans and some liberal political sites editorially supportive of, [see update above], but separate from, the Hillary Clinton campaign.

As noted in the Wisconsin Elections Commission website, Wisconsin is composed of 72 counties that will be the authorities for the recount. Municipalities in the counties will conduct the actual processes, with the state Commission offering logistical, legal, and other support in a partnership capacity.

Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution are indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.The Wisconsin Elections Commission Board (formerly the GAB) 2015-2016 calendar is also online.

From the Wisconsin Elections Commission website, a press release announcing the recount petitions and the current popular votes for president are posted.

Wisconsin Elections Commission Receives Two Presidential Election Recount Petitions

Date: November 25, 2016

MADISON, WI – The Wisconsin Elections Commission today received two recount petitions from the Jill Stein for President Campaign and from Rocky Roque De La Fuente, Administrator Michael Haas announced.

“The Commission is preparing to move forward with a statewide recount of votes for President of the United States, as requested by these candidates,” Haas said.

“We have assembled an internal team to direct the recount, we have been in close consultation with our county clerk partners, and have arranged for legal representation by the Wisconsin Department of Justice,” Haas said. “We plan to hold a teleconference meeting for county clerks next week and anticipate the recount will begin late in the week after the Stein campaign has paid the recount fee, which we are still calculating.”

The last statewide recount was of the Supreme Court election in 2011.  At that time, the Associated Press surveyed county clerks and reported that costs to the counties exceeded $520,000, though several counties did not respond to the AP’s survey.  That election had 1.5 million votes, and Haas said the Commission expects the costs to be higher for an election with 2.975 million votes.  “The Commission is in the process of obtaining cost estimates from county clerks so that we can calculate the fee which the campaigns will need to pay before the recount can start,” Haas said.  The Commission will need to determine how the recount costs will be assessed to the campaigns.

The state is working under a federal deadline of December 13 to complete the recount. As a result, county boards of canvassers may need to work evenings and weekends to meet the deadlines. “The recount process is very detail-oriented, and this deadline will certainly challenge some counties to finish on time,” Haas said.  

A recount is different than an audit and is more rigorous, Haas explained.  More than 100 reporting units across the state were randomly selected for a separate audit of their voting equipment as required by state law, and that process has already begun.  Electronic voting equipment audits determine whether all properly-marked ballots are accurately tabulated by the equipment.  In a recount, all ballots (including those that were originally hand counted) are examined to determine voter intent before being retabulated. In addition, the county boards of canvassers will examine other documents, including poll lists, written absentee applications, rejected absentee ballots, and provisional ballots before counting the votes.

Haas noted that the Commission’s role is to order the recount, to provide legal guidance to the counties during the recount, and to certify the results.  If the candidates disagree with the results of the recount, the law gives them the right to appeal in circuit court within five business days after the recount is completed.  The circuit court is where issues are resolved that may be discovered during the recount but are not resolved to the satisfaction of the candidates.

“Wisconsin has the most decentralized election system in the United States,” Haas said. “The system has strong local control coupled with state oversight, resting on the partnership between the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the 72 county clerks, and the 1,854 municipal clerks. State law clearly gives each county’s Board of Canvassers the primary authority to conduct the recount, and to decide which ballots should and should not be counted.  Recounting votes is an open, transparent process in which each of the candidates may have representatives present to raise objections, and where the public may be present to observe.” ...

Recounts Should Proceed

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and myriad Americans want a recount of three swing states comprising the Scranton-to-Oshkosh 'rust belt' corridor.

The white working-class, (among other demographics), voted differently than many voting models had predicted, amid unprecedented foreign intervention in our presidential campaign by Russian hackers, so many Americans want a recount to ensure the election was not hacked.

However, the specific reasons Dr. Stein and supporters have for requesting a recount are beside the point.

The election rules of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin afford opportunities for a recount, and do not condition a recount on the concerns of the petitioner(s) other than a broad stated belief that, for example, a "mistake or fraud has been committed in a specified ward or municipality in the counting and return of the votes cast for the office or upon the question or that another specified defect, irregularity, or illegality occurred in the conduct of the election," (Wisconsin State Statute).

The post-election conventional wisdom, collectively devoid of irony as an industry of experts deride the recount petition with the same certainty presented in falsely predicting the 2016 election results, does not address the rights and rules of the recount processes, (Wisconsin Elections Commission).

Correct?

Worth noting is the fact recounts are also a project with the added benefit of promoting confidence in the 2016 election, a plank of the Green Party platform calling for "publicly-owned, open source voting equipment [deployed] across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; [a process using] verifiable paper ballots; and [instituting] mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results," (Green Party).

Recounts will continue because state statutes were drafted contemplating the broad election-administration concerns of Jill Stein, free and fair election activists and the voters.

With respect to 538.com and other anti-recount political sites, if you do not want a recount, don't petition for one.

Bizarre Opposition to Verifying Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Presidential Results

Don't verify election results, just trust polling experts, argues 538.com

Update II: Jill Stein confirms intention to request recount in three swing states.
 
Update: Green Party raises $2.5 Million for recount in Wisconsin as corporate media and Clinton campaign throw wet blanket over recount-verification effort, (O'Brien, Reuters). What excuse could anyone possibly have to not verify the results of this election?
 ---
After Jill Stein joined the effort to verify the presidential elections in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania with a paper ballot recount, the project has drawn an unlikely opponent—538.com.

Recount proponents make a persuasive case for a recount of three swing states, and pointedly do not make specific hypotheses positing the states were hacked or the election results otherwise improperly tabulated.

Recount advocates do wish to ensure confidence and accuracy in the election results, which represent the will of the American voters.

In reaction, 538.com in a perverse column by Carl Bialik and Rob Arthur states with certainty, Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Result, and cautions recounts should be discouraged because they subvert confidence.

What?

Bialik and Arthur's concluding bizarre paragraph reads in part, "It’s possible nonetheless that the election was hacked, in the sense that anything is possible. ... The paradox is that in our current electoral system, without routine audits, seeking proof requires calling for a recount, which in itself can undermine confidence in the vote."

So in campaign 2016 we have foreign agents that all agree imposed a foreign power into the American presidential election, we have a major political party that was hacked by a foreign power, we have results almost no one saw coming determining the election, and we have election and statistical experts as well as a presidential candidate, Jill Stein, calling for a recount; therefore Bialik and Arthur conclude: No recount because the precision obtained in a recount will undermine confidence in the election.

Bialik and Arthur may have penned the dumbest column yet of campaign 2016.

Below is the press release by Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president 2016 calling for a recount:

Election Integrity depends on YOU!

The Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign is launching an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections. We are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where there is a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals. Please donate to this initiative today.
To give you a sense of the problem, the voting machines used in Wisconsin were banned in California after they were shown to be highly vulnerable to hacking and malicious programming due to lacking security features.

"After a divisive and painful presidential race, in which foreign agents hacked into party databases, private email servers, and voter databases in certain states, many Americans are wondering if our election results are reliable. That's why the unexpected results of the election and reported anomalies need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust." -- Dr. Jill Stein.

This is about more than the results of this one election. This is about protecting our democracy and ensuring that "We the People" can have confidence in reported results.

We need your help to make sure your votes were counted accurately on Election Day. Please donate now to help maintain integrity in our elections. Please donate to this effort to protect our democracy.
This effort to ensure election integrity is in your hands! In order to make this happen, we need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central. In true grassroots fashion, we're turning to you, the people, and not big-money corporate donors to make this happen.

Click Here to Donate Today! We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state. If we do not raise enough for any recount (which is highly unlikely) we pledge to use the money for election integrity efforts and to promote systemic voting system reform.