The report stated, “The Legislature might also consider formalizing the ability of candidates to assemble alternative slates of electors, to ratify an already lawful process.”Īnother recommendation in the report suggested that “a politically accountable body, such an association of elected county clerks,” should be responsible for the certification of Wisconsin’s presidential electors, taking oversight away from the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission. Gableman also floated a suggestion that could potentially normalize the formation of “alternate slates” of electors, like those in Wisconsin and six other states who convened and submitted fraudulent electoral votes for Donald Trump in December 2020. Gableman also called for the state’s legislature to establish “processes for standardizing challenges both pre- and post-certification.” In the report, Gableman said that such an act - which would seemingly validate the false assertion that elections can be revisionally “decertified” - could “establish opportunities to raise or expedite decertification procedures on the floor of the Assembly or Senate.” Timothy Ramthun’s efforts to introduce resolutions that would allow the Legislature to retroactively alter the votes of the state’s electors.Īttempts to assert political control over election results and administration Calls for the decertification of Wisconsin’s 2020 electoral votes have increased in recent weeks, spurred in part by Wisconsin Rep. During his testimony, Gableman said, “I think the legislature ought to take a very hard look at the decertification of the 2020 election.” Independent legal scholars and election experts have said that decertification is not a legal possibility, and during the hearing, the legislative counsel for the elections committee said that the “door is closed” on elections once votes are cast and sealed. In the report and at the hearing, Gableman appeared to endorse the idea that the Wisconsin legislature could “decertify” the state’s 2020 electoral votes. It was less clear what exactly that work would entail, but the report and accompanying testimony included suggestions of potential next steps for the office and its backers in the Assembly.Īttempts to “decertify” the results of the 2020 presidential election While there had been suggestions that Tuesday’s report would be the final word from Gableman and the Office of Special Counsel, Gableman made it clear that the work of his office was far from over. We currently have three open lawsuits against the Wisconsin Assembly, Speaker Robin Vos, and Gableman’s Office of Special Counsel seeking the release of documents that could provide the public with further information about the probe.Īmerican Oversight’s team reviewed the text of Gableman’s report as well as the testimony given at the Tuesday hearing and has identified a number of key questions about the investigation that remain unanswered. ” During more than three hours of testimony before the Assembly’s Committee on Campaigns and Elections on Tuesday, attorney Michael Gableman outlined his findings and set forth a number of assertions and recommendations regarding the conduct of Wisconsin’s elections.Īmerican Oversight has been investigating efforts to undermine democracy in Wisconsin, and we have uncovered hundreds of pages of public records that shine a light on the partisan influences behind the Assembly’s election investigation. On Tuesday, the investigator leading the Wisconsin Assembly’s review of the 2020 presidential election released a “ second interim investigative report.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |