Saturday, November 26th, 2022
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Wisconsin Spotlight | Nov. 30 , 2020

MADISON — Several poll workers and observers at Milwaukee’s Central Count site have provided notarized statements of what they say were myriad violations of Wisconsin election laws during the ballot processing/counting on Election Day. Their testimony is, in part, the basis for lawsuits alleging election fraud and for the Trump campaign’s petition for the partial recount of ballots in the presidential election in Milwaukee and Dane Counties. 

The recount wrapped up on Sunday, finding little change to the original ballot count. Democrat candidate Joe Biden’s lead over Republican President Donald Trump in Wisconsin remained 20,608 votes. It remains so because elections officials in the two liberal counties ignored or overruled the objections of Trump campaign observers, as they did to poll workers and observers on Election Day. 

Here are statements from two witnesses at Central Count on Election Day. 

Declaration from Poll observer Bart Williams 

1. My name. is Bartholomew R. Williams. I am over the age of 18. All the facts stated herein are true and based on my personal knowledge. 

2. I am a resident of Wisconsin and live at (REDACTED) 

3. I was appointed as a watcher for Central Count in Milwaukee, 501 W. Michigan St., Milwaukee, WI 53203, as an independent election/poll observer. 

4. I arrived at the above address at 6:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 3,2020 but was not allowed to go to the Central Count area/floor until 7:00 a.m. Then, I had to wait in line, present photo identification, sign in, and await instructions from the ballot processing/counting leadership/staff. As a result, I was not able to actually start observing ballot processing/counting until at least 7:30 a.m., and therefore, I was excluded from the first full 30 minutes of observing the ballot processing/counting. 

5. I did not enter or attempt to enter restricted places at Central Count. I did not interfere in any way with the process of ballot processing/counting, nor mark or alter any official election record. 

6. As mentioned in paragraph number 4 above, Claire Woodall-Vogg, Brenda Wood, and several supervisors (none had a visible name badge nor told me their name) refused to allow me access to Central Count in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from the time that the ballot processors/counters met prior to the opening of Central Count at 7:00 a.m. until approximately 7:30 a.m.; refused to allow me to remain in an unobtrusive area of the ballot-processing/counting location from which I reasonably could see and hear what was occurring for the vast majority (at least two-thirds) of the tables being used for ballot processing/counting; stopped allowing me to keep a list of voters — beyond the five I logged — with ballot defects that I genuinely believe were tampered with (in violation of the state Wisconsin Constitution/or applicable Wisconsin statutes) by the ballot processing/counting leadership and/or staff; refused to allow me to challenge several of the qualifications of a legal,valid, and complete ballot (including proper, accurate, and complete voter certification and required witness information) for any ballot; and refused to require the ballot processors/counters to announce the names of electors in a way that allowed me to hear each name and ballot number. In addition, it is my genuine belief Ms. Woodall-Vogg, Ms. Wood, and other members of their supervisory staff violated numerous other applicable laws, regulations, and/or other rules — as well as reasonable intent — associated with the ability and rights of election observers/watchers to have meaningful physical and visually-close [i.e., close enough for an average person to see the ballot details such as whether or not the voter signed the ballot, whether or not all required voter certification and witness information (including signature and address) was present, whether or not any pre-printed ballot information (e.g., the number of days (for example, 10 vs. 28 days) the voter certified he/she was a resident of the district he/she voted in), etc.) access to all the ballots. Also,I believe Ms. Woodall-Vogg, Ms. Wood, and other supervisors deliberately, seriously, and repeatedly violated my rights and/pr access an an election observer/watcher in the numerous other ways….

As a result of Claire Woodall-Vogg’s, Brenda Wood’s, and other supervisors’ acts, I was unable to fulfill my responsibilities or exercise my rights to meaningful observation as an election/ballot-processing/counting observer/watcher. 

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to that the forgoing is true and correct. (28 u.s.c. $ 1746). 

Statement from Central Count Poll Worker Dan Miller 

I was asked to recap my first-hand experience of working at Central Count, 501 W Michigan Ave, Milwaukee, Wisconsin on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 from 5:45am – 3:41pm.  

The first ward we worked on was #25. My work-mate’s name was Hannah.  We divided up the absentee ballots and began to go through them to look for ballots that were illegal.  I began to set aside the ballots that had the red pen cross out of the 10 or the 28 on the portion that read: “…or have changed my residence within the state from one ward or election district to another within 10 days before the election. I certify that I exhibited the enclosed ballot unmarked to the witness…”.  It soon became apparent that on that particular stack, the ballots being set aside to be challenged was over six inches high.  I stopped pulling them out, because I did not want to re-alphabetize should the challenge get rejected.  I noticed that some of the ballots read “10” which was crossed out, and “28” was written in, but then some were printed with “28”, but were crossed out and written in with a “10.”  I raised my “yellow China fan” to indicate I had ballots(s) to challenge and the Pod overseer guy said they were all ok.  

It didn’t take very long for the organizers of Central Count to get on the mic to tell everyone that they were not going to accept any challenges on Statute 6.87(2), nor were they going to accept any challenges on the address of the witness written in red in on the ballot.  I’m guessing that happened around 7:15-7:20am.  We had our pod’s captain come over several times (3 times) for tape on a few ballots.   In one instance, packing tape was used over the top of the envelope.  It did not appear that the envelope was opened.  The second occurrence had tape over the right side of the envelope and it was clear that the envelope had been opened.  The third occurrence had tape on the back of the envelope, to seal the flap.  Each time the challenge was rejected on a taped ballot envelope.  One ballot came to us unsealed.  The flap of the envelope was wide open.  We called them over to reject it and our claim was rejected.  All day, out of two wards (25 & 50) only one ballot was rejected, as it clearly did not have a witness signature anywhere on it.  (They were also allowing signatures that were not in the witness signature area).  

On Ward 50, I decided to count the number of ballots that had red pen marking/crossed out in the 6.87(2) statute (28/10 residency) area.  I counted 88 in the entire batch.  I documented my findings each time I finished a stack.  In this particular ward, there were three stacks.  I believe the total number of votes in that ward were 335.  I’m not 100% sure that the total number of votes processed in that ward was 335, but I do remember recalling that it was just a few more than 333 – a number easily remembered by any Christian.  That is a ratio of about 26.2% that were deficient in my eyes.  

Fentanyl taking greater toll

The pink wave

November 25, 2022

Fentanyl taking greater toll