Verify the Recall – Has Been Verified

The results are in – they should be advocating for stronger public schools!

I recently asked "who is going to verify the "Verify the Recall" group? Luckily for us, our friends at PR watch did just that:

Findings released this week from the Tea Party-led “Verify the Recall” effort allege that recall proponents fell short of the 540,000 signatures necessary to recall Governor Scott Walker. However, a cursory review of the pages they allege are erroneous actually include the information they claim is missing. Signatures the groups deem “ineligible” are very clearly legitimate. Some of the problems appear to arise from data entry errors on the part of True the Vote volunteers.

VTR said that they supposedly had approximately 4700 “volunteers” from across the country(who all shall remain anonymous) who entered 820,000 names and 138,203 petitions. The problem though was 1,000,000 names and 152,508 petitions were submitted. Oops. That means they flat out did not “verify” almost 60,000 signatures. According to their logic, if they did not enter the names they have to be ineligible. VTR also “flagged” another 228,940 for”further investigation”. Again, VTR logic states if they flag it, it must be ineligible.

Brendan @ PR Watch went through these and found a pattern. The “ineligible” signatures were embarrassingly to VTR eligibile. Let’s look at some examples:

The following examples are not isolated — many, many similar mistakes were quickly found in the True the Vote data set:

True the Vote discounts the signature of Mary Babiash (page 980) because she added the state abbreviation “WI” to her zip code. Her address is otherwise correct.

The group calls Clifford Winkleman’s signature (see page 3) ineligible because it has a “bad sign date.” The date section on his petition is completed, but it looks like he pushed hard when he wrote the “10” in “01/10/2012.” Linda Winkleman, who lives at the same address, signed below him, and also on 01/10/2012.

The group would not count Joshua Epps’ signature (see page 250) because he forgot to add the year when he dated his otherwise-valid signature.

The signature from Tyrell Luebkes (see page 983) would not be counted because he entered his city in the “street address” section, and vice versa.

They would not count Cheryl L Koch’s signature (see page 497), saying she had a “bad sign date” of 1/91/12 because of a stray pen stroke behind the “9” on the correct sign date: 1/9/12

I know! I know!

But Wait There's More:

According to VTR, data entry errors makes signatures ineligible:

True the Vote appeared to mark other signatures “ineligible” because of data entry errors on the part of True the Vote volunteers.

True the Vote considers Heath Beacher’s signature (see page 497) ineligible because “1/6/ 2012” (note space) was entered into the database, causing the software to mark it with a “bad sign date.” The date on the original, handwritten petition is legible and valid. This data entry error is enough to invalidate her signature.

Keith Iverson’s signature (see page 259) is given a “bad sign date” of “Dec 2, 2011,” apparently because the volunteer entering the information into the True the Vote database wrote “Dec.” rather than “12.” This flags his signature as “Invalid.”

Kelly Ullrick signed a recall petition with her full name, but the True the Vote volunteer entering her into the database (see page 984) failed to include her last name. The software tagged this as an “incomplete record,” and thus ineligible, due to a missing last name, even though her last name is clearly visible on the original petition.

Similarly, Alexandra Aulisi’s signature (see page 9) is ineligible because of a “bad sign date,” after the volunteer entering data wrote the letters “ll” rather than the numbers “11” for “11/15/ll”.

Meghan Walsh’s signature (see page 168) is deemed invalid for a “bad sign date,” because the True the Vote volunteer entered “!!/!^/!!” instead of 11/11/2011.

True the Vote considers Jocelyn Tilsen’s signature (see page 2) ineligible as a result of a “bad sign date,” because one of their volunteers entered “1/1O/12” (note O) instead of 1/10/12.

Review the data for yourself here!

While the VTR/TTV folks are adamant on remaining anonymous during this process, Blogging Blue was able to get exclusive footage of their initial motivational, informational meeting!

Seriously though the VTR/TTV people are like bad karaoke singers who everyone encourages to keep singing so they can be made fun and do not get that they are the joke and not part of the joke. I am starting to feel sorry for them.

There is a reason that even Scott Walker will not take them seriously.


Related Articles

59 thoughts on “Verify the Recall – Has Been Verified

  1. TTV’s first analysis of the petitions in the Fitzgerald recall was missing approximately a third of the petition pages – 1,303 pages – that is, a third of the pages did not result in any rows in their spreadsheet tally. They even admitted outright they hadn’t downloaded 340 of the 3963 pages from the GAB site, but the press release dutifully repeated by Wisconsin Reporter did not reflect this known 8.5% error, much less the third of pages they missed. No wonder they concluded that the recall petitions didn’t have enough signatures.

  2. “Meghan Walsh’s signature (see page 168) is deemed invalid for a “bad sign date,” because the True the Vote volunteer entered “!!/!^/!!” instead of 11/11/2011”

    When all signatures were not supposed to be collected before 11/15/2011 wouldn’t 11/11/11 still be an incorrect date even if you ignore the data entry error? Just wondering.

    And “Joshua Epps’ signature (see page 250) because he forgot to add the year when he dated his otherwise-valid signature.”

    It begs the question if he didn’t put a year when did he sign it? Just because the petitions were circulated in the year Nov 15 2011- Jan 15 2012 how does one know for sure when he signed. Yeah maybe you could say that it would only make sense that he would have signed during these periods of time, that is not necessarily true. I believe many political parties are up to all kinds of dirty tricks and since hearing how much the Democratic party hates Walker and that they have had plans for quite sometime to recall him even before the collective bargaining flap, it wouldn’t be surprising that some of these petitions might have been floating around for sometime. BTW no I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor believe in UFO’s. Just believe in the power of people being highly vindictive these days when things don’t go their way. And that’s for all political parties involved, not just one or the other.

    1. “since hearing how much the Democratic party hates Walker and that they have had plans for quite sometime to recall him even before the collective bargaining flap”

      Proof? Cite credible sources, please.

      1. Well, I started the recall walker facebook group in November the day after he was elected. So theres my proof.

    2. “!!/!^/!!” …if you look at your keyboard you will quickly see that if you DIND’T use the shift key when entering this sequence, you’d get 11/16/11.

      As for not entering the year…if a signature is betwixt a group of other signatures…it obviously would fall within the same date range…and the circulator has the right to correct dates on papers…actually the circulators can correct a number of things EXCEPT the signature and still have a valid entry.

      One of the biggest issues with the various verify groups is they have little or no understanding of the actual rules surrounding recall and nomination paper circulation.

      1. So you would be fine with that same chain of logic if a Democrat was being recalled? Just wondering.

        1. Actually that’s the law…so yes I would accept that.

          btw: the bit about “!!/!^/!!” is a data entry error…I don’t think any signer actually manually wrote that on a petition paper.

          1. I will agree that no one actually wrote that on a petition, but if you look at the petitions on the GAB website, talk about advocating for better education. Dear lord, the only way I can describe the entries on the hard copy petitions, is what my public middle school English teacher used to call work that was turned in to her that looked like the writings on many of the petitions. Chicken scratch! Illegible is an under statement

            1. “Dear lord, the only way I can describe the entries on the hard copy petitions, is what my public middle school English teacher used to call work that was turned in to her that looked like the writings on many of the petitions. ”

              Send that sentence to your middle school English teacher and tell them to smoke it.

            2. Maybe we need to ask Governor Walker to restore the $1.6 billion in education funds that were cut in his budget ASAP…

              1. It’s chicken scratch as well, but I would imagine that since the intent of the voter must be clear, I would think that a clear signature would be called for. As for his chicken scratch signature on official state documents or passed legislation, let me know if you find anything in the state statues that would require it be neater. I know if I were signing something that I felt was as critically important as a recall petition I would make certain my intent is clear.

                  1. Please spend some time elsewhere and learn what the rules are about what is and what isn’t legal on recall petitions and nomination papers…and I suggest someone other than the verify people…they don’t know either…since you don’t want to believe what we are telling you.

                    1. What makes you think I don’t believe you and just because you don’t like my answer to my question does not mean I need to go away. I have not suggested you do the same. If you read all of my comments you will see that I have looked into what is involved in the recall process. I live in Sheboygan make no determination that I have no idea what it takes to do a recall. I have been involved in a successful one. If Gov. Walker is recalled let me know then how this one is going.

        2. As for not knowing, I looked into the Verify the Recall for myself and they have links as to how they process this. There are 7 things they look for, if any of those things are missing, it doesn’t say make up the information. It says this is how the software processes the data entered. Here, I will give you the links, you can check it out for yourself. I hate to think that there aren’t any free thinkers in any of the parties involved here. They list all their instructions for those entering data right on their site. I don’t see anything that they are hiding or changing and I have also looked into what the state statues are in regards to the recall process, nowhere in there did I see that the GAB gets to do anything other than what the statues require. Well like I said check it out for yourself, just think of it this way imagine being a movie critic & writing your critique about how horrible the movie is just because someone told you it was horrible.
          And here is the chart they use that explains how they “determine” signatures are valid or invalid.

          1. NONE of those things apply on any of the questionable names of people I know. Date is valid. Address is complete and valid. They aren’t dead. And they are fully legible.

            They arbitrarily added names as ‘questionable’ for NO reason. That’s clear as day.

            Their work is a f’ing joke and should be treated as such.

            1. Again this is all really a moot point, since there is no challenge and VTR can’t call challenges. If they put stuff out there to be picked apart by the general public, news services or what have you so be it. It is going to change nothing for people on either side to get worked up over it. If you think it’s a gross misrepresentation then contact them and tell them as such if it will assuage your anger. But, I find that people that let this meaningless junk weigh that heavily in their heart generally never find peace.

  3. @ Sally

    Nice try at feigning neutrality. Unfortunately, your wingnut/teabagger fringe is showing.

    1. Funny I don’t recall in any of my statements saying I had any affiliation with any political party. I think all of them are filled with whiny people who shout & pout when they don’t get their way. I vote & don’t expect to have to keep voting past the normal election cycles. And you all seem to like voting over & over again & again. There is a big difference between sticking up for true principles & being a whiny baby.

      1. You’re a wingnut, Sally, just admit it, huh?

        Although I will say that your protestations to the contrary are kinda cute. A little “whiny”, but cute, you little wingnut you.

          1. I am having fun with you, Sally, you old sourpuss, you.

            While your words don’t technically express an “affiliation”, your tone and viewpoint do.

            I’ve constructed a complex algorithm to sort out such complex “affiliation” determinations.

            Here is what application of the algorithm to what you have written produced:

            “Sally is clearly a wingnut, is clearly a Walker supporter and is clearly opposed to the effort to remove Walker from office. Application of the algorithm did, however, highlight one anomaly, your intelligence, something not commonly found in the average wingnut.

  4. Very quick glance at data entry errors they made on my family:

    They spelled my son’s name wrong and it’s A) a common name and B) pretty clear
    They entered zip code wrong for my son, which could/would flag it – and it is right on petition – I am looking at scanned copy
    The spelled put “Menomonee Galls” as municipality for my dad…. that’s not what is written

    I found my son and 2 best friends listed on “Questionable”…. WTF does that mean?

    1. Look at the links that Verify as that I listed in the comments here and you might see why they say it’s questionable, remember a lot of what we are talking about here is really kind of a moot point since Walker & Kleefisch are not challenging any of the signatures. So, just because Verify says it’s questionable really does it matter at this point. The GAB will count how many lines were filled out within the state statues and btw the recall people have a million signatures my great aunt fanny. If you take 152,000ish petition papers, that would only equal 1.5 million if all sheets were 10 signatures and were filled out according to the statues. Well here’s the problem with that fuzzy math that the organizers of the recall effort seem to have. Not all the petitions are 10 lines. Some are only 5 and I would be willing to bet that not all the petitions whether 5 or 10 lines long were filled out on every single line. So, I can’t wait to hear how many there actually were, but a million. I highly doubt.

      1. “…btw the recall people have a million signatures my great aunt fanny…”

        It would be stupid to lie about something so incredibly easy to verify…

        so using your fuzzy math…if we use 5 lines per page which would be the ‘average’ betwixt 0 and 10…times your 152,000 piees of paper…we still have 760,000 sigs…aina hey?

        1. Yeah and? My original point still stands especially given your example. Thank you for confirmation of the lack of a million or more signatures.

          1. It would be stupid to lie about something so incredibly easy to verify…all you have to do is visit the GAB site to see them!

            It only takes 6.6 sigs per page to hit a million. And that’s quite a reasonable per page count.

            1. How do you get 6.6 signatures on a 5 line page? If you believe I have fuzzy math that seems to be contagious.

            2. So let me get this straight VTR is wrong for assuming that all their count is valid and you are right for assuming that all the signatures will meet muster and be valid. How does that work?

              1. No…I am suggesting that they turned in 1 million signatures as they claimed and the COUNT is valid…whether all of the SIGNATURES are valid is a different question…

                BTW: some forms have a maximum of 5 names per page and some 10…

      2. Yeahhhh, YOU’RE not a wingnut, are ya, Sally?


        Come on, Sal, just admit it, already.

      3. I did look. There is no reason for my friends’ and son’s signatures to be questionable. No reason. They are valid.

        The dates are within range, valid and complete addresses and complete names. They are fully legible unless you’re an idiot – oh, wait, there it is!

        1. Ok, since you have not listed anyway for me to see what you are talking about, how do you come up with who’s an idiot?

  5. Sally is just another low-information, emotion-driven wingnut who is frustrated that things aren’t going the way that she wants them, too.

    Even though she refuses to admit to her Wingnutitude, at least she’s not talking about 2nd Amendment remedies. . .yet.

    1. So, you believe I would bring the right to arm bears into this discussion? How is that critical to actual thought. So, let me know when you come up with one other than your ill-informed perception of me.

      1. I’m just f*cking with you, Sally. Lighten up.

        Hey, maybe you’re not actually a wingnut. You just talk like one, right?


        You’re really not fooling anybody, Sally, my “ill-informed perception”, notwithstanding.

        The recall election will happen. Walker, Kleefisch, Fitzgerald and the rest will be removed from office. And you will undoubtedly be crying in your beer, along with all of the other wingnuts.

        1. Didn’t know you were a psychic. You can see into the future. I personally only care about one thing. You want to know what that is, oh wait you already know cause you are all knowing all seeing. Btw, I know plenty of people from many parties who are miserable people. I don’t believe I am. I just passionately articulate my positions. If that makes me in your mind a “wingnut”, then heck I am glad you are not one. Cause I have not seen you present one valid point or intelligent argument in regards to this subject. I can think of plenty of words that would describe that problem you have. I would say I am just messing with you too, but I was told never to toy with the intellectually challenged.

          1. Like I was saying, Sally. You need to lighten up.

            In any event, I’m pretty sure that neither one of us is “intellectually challenged”, as you put it. So, feel free to “toy” with me all you want. a’ite? (*wink*)

  6. First of all… are you daft? This isn’t over and they and the Walker campaign are still trying to get the ‘findings’ of this crazy out-of-state agitating group to be reviewed:

    I don’t *think* it’s a gross misrepresentation, I *know* it is. I know those addresses are valid, complete, legible and the people are not dead. And I don’t need to give you my personal information so *you* can confirm or deny any of that.

    This group is ‘concerned about protecting the rights of those who didn’t sign it’, but are clearly out to disenfranchise tens and thousands of those who did and did so properly. Clear as day.

    Go troll elsewhere, nobody here is buying your patronizing BS.

    1. A) Of course it’s not over, there is yet to be verification from the GAB which at this point is the only thing that matters, unless Walker’s campaign decides to take it to court. But, I highly suspect that will not happen. And even if VTR attempts to bring this to court I will not be surprised if they are not allowed to bring challenges as the GAB has already said not once but twice ummm..NO! B) You are right you don’t have to give me the information so that I might see your point and maybe agree with you. So in that same vein, I don’t have to believe that you are someone that truly takes this seriously, because if you did believe that you, your family or your friends were wronged you would complain to the people who actually could do something about it. Lastly, I was not attempting to be patronizing. And based on your statements. I am not quite sure you understand what it truly means to be patronized. We will all see what happens when things happen and not a moment before they are meant to happen. I wasn’t 100% sure that Ryan would be voted out, but that didn’t stop us from trying and succeeding.

  7. Sally R…at no time did I suggest you ‘leave’…I just suggested you get some additional information beyond the bias on VTR and BB…

    1. I do apologize that I misunderstood your intentions. Have a great day. I have appreciated the lively debate from you. You at least have presented some valid points. Shame that not enough thinking people actually post on many of these blogs. You sir are a rare gem. Thank you for your thoughts.

  8. BOO HOO! You poor ignorant liberals who can’t think for yourselves so you have to let the unions pollute your minds with their self-centered garbage. When people collecting signatures were asked why they wanted Governor Walker recalled they made comments like “just wait til this winter and your streets aren’t plowed or your garbage isn’t picked up”. Guess what? My streets were plowed and my garbage was picked up. You are like little puppies following mom around because you cannot think for yourselves. You are a bunch of cheating and lying hypocrites. I work for what I have and don’t have to rely on others to take care of me. Why don’t you do the same! Have a nice day.

    1. Randy Randy Randy –

      You are a bunch of cheating and lying hypocrites. I work for what I have and don’t have to rely on others to take care of me.

      My streets were plowed and my garbage was picked up.

      congratulations on plowing your own path where ver you wanted to go on the road that you put down and for taking care of your own trash and not allowing anyone to take care of you….

  9. Recall Walker? No, no, no! CALL Walker…and thank him. Thank him for being honest. Thank him for creating a climate that is attractive for businesses to thrive. Thank him for eliminating the enormous debt and mess that Governor (Loser) Doyle left behind. Thank him for eliminating the ridiculous train from Milwaukee to Madison that taxpayers would have been burdened with for many, many years. Thank him for getting rid of the brainwashing and blood sucking unions that have hampered productivity and have cost taxpayers many millions of dollars, not to mention forcing people who did not want to pay dues to have to pay them and helping fund political agendas that were not the choice of all their workers. I could go on and on but I’m tired. Anyhow, even if you are too ignorant to understand this, do yourself and the citizens of Wisconsin a favor…Thank Walker!

    1. Randy, Scott Walker didn’t eliminate Wisconsin’s debt, as I’ve written about before.

      Oh, and Scott Walker also didn’t get rid of public employee unions; they’re still here, despite what you may think, and thanks to last week’s ruling by a federal judge, they’re going to get back some of the rights Gov. Walker unconstitutionally took from them.

    2. @ Randy

      “Blood sucking unions?”

      Is there a new “Twilight” sequel out that I haven’t heard about?

  10. Boy, you can just smell the fear from the Walker supporters and the paid trolls since Friday, can’t you? People see through your boy, and your ways have FAILED. The recall was legitimate with an absurdly low rejection rate of 3.2% because the organizers performed due diligence and went out of their way to avoid recording signatures that were obvious frauds or duplicates. Compare that to the racist trash at “Vilify the Recall” were unable to do, as shown by their complete failure to find fraud or even perform data entry that an average high schooler should have been able to do.

    And for the trolls still stupid enough or paid off to mouth talking points- the deficit was never $3.6 billion, Walker never closed that deficit, we’ve lost more jobs than any other state in the U.S., and Wisconsin government is now historically corrupt with multiple indictments against Walker staff, with all indications pointing to involvement from Walker himself (or Walker has amazing levels of ignorance and incompetence as an executive. Your pick).

    Go ahead trolls, prove ONE statement of mine here wrong. BRING IT!

Comments are closed.