May 6, 2025
VIROQUA, Wis. – Vernon County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Gaskell ruled that there were too many unanswered questions regarding a recount that took place in a town to Liberty supervisors race to know how to rule on an appeal that was sent to him last week. As a result, Judge Gaskell ordered the town of Liberty Board of Canvassers to redo a recount to clear up those questions before proceeding further.
But to get to a decision on how to proceed Judge Gaskell took all the parties involved through the twists and turns that forced the issue to the circuit court.
Gaskell recounted the series of events that everyone in the court agreed to up to this point. On election night there were two supervisor seats open in the town of Liberty. There were three candidates running for those two seats and voters were instructed on their ballot to vote for no more than two candidates. One candidate, Bill Townsley, received more votes than the other two with 95 votes, and clearly won one of the two seats. But the other two candidates, Jason Vidas and Carrie Vanek appeared to have tied with 82 votes apiece. Election officials working at the town of Liberty polling place called County Clerk Jerry Pedretti and asked how to resolve the tie. Pedretti advised them to use some kind of chance method of deciding like drawing a name from a hat, cutting a deck of cards, or flipping a coin. They decided to flip a coin. Vanek won that coin toss and was declared the winner on election night.
Recount requested
Since the vote difference was obviously with the margin to ask for a recount, Vidas did ask for a recount as is allowed under state election law. That recount was conducted on April 5 at the Liberty town hall and included the town Board of Canvassers, Albert Miller, Kay Starr and Cathy Linskens. Town Clerk Sharon Engh conducted the recount with County Clerk Jerry Pedretti also present to advise/assist the town. Vanek and Vidas were present along with the other supervisor that was high vote getter, Bill Townsley. There was one other town resident present for the recount.
The initial outcome of the recount seemed to show a reversal of the election night result with Vidas now being declared the winner. The change came as a result of the discovery that one absentee ballot had been witnessed by a person who was also a candidate on the ballot, town chairperson Orlin Engh. State election law says that is not allowed. The town clerk and county clerk made an interpretation of state statues that the ballot in question would be removed from vote totals for all candidates on the ballot. It now appears the correct procedure would have been to draw down the vote totals only for the candidate that improperly witnessed the absentee ballot. That would mean only Engh would lose one vote but not the other candidates. If that is in fact how the statute should have been interpreted that would mean Vanek should not have had her vote total decreased due to that improper signature and there would still be a tie.
Vanek files challenge to the recount
As a result of that possible misinterpretation, Vanek filed a appeal of that recount with the Vernon County Circuit Court pointing out the misinterpretation and asking the court to restore that vote that she says was improperly taken from her.
Vidas files response
Vidas then filed a response to Vanek’s appeal claiming that Vanek also improperly witnessed an absentee ballot, and because of a slight variation in her name, that ballot was not called into question during the recount process, but should have been. The appeal to the court states that a “member of the same Board of Canvassers, namely Kay Starr, also observed the absentee ballot
envelope signed by Carolyn Vanek and learned after the adjournment of the recount, that Carolyn Vanek is the same person as Carrie Vanek.”
The appeal also argues that the ballot Vanek witnessed was not a legal ballot and asks the court to remedy the situation by doing another recount.
Court hearing – Monday, May 5
At Mondays court hearing Judge Gaskell showed Liberty Town Chairperson Orlin Engh and candidate Carrie Vanek court exhibits that showed their signature on absentee ballots that they signed as witnesses. They both agreed they had witnessed absentee ballots as candidates which is not allowed, and is stated on the ballot. Gaskell said he had a hard time understanding how that happened.
“I try to wrap my head around is why Mr. Engh or Miss Vanek sign an absentee ballot when it is unambiguous on the ballot itself, right above the signature, I am not a candidate for any office on the post ballot,” said Gaskell. “Which is shocking to me that either one of you would have signed the ballot.”
Gaskell said it is clear that both Engh and Vanek should lose a vote but then added that since Vidas filed his challenge to Vanek’s appeal, Vanek has since come forward with more information that some voters may have been allowed to vote without proper identification. Gaskell said that if that new information had not been brought forward it is clear that Vidas should be declared the winner, but without knowing if the information about improper ID is true or not, the only remedy is to send the issue back to the town of canvassers to redo the recount and determine if more votes need to be thrown out.
Vidas’ attorney George Wilbur stated he agreed with Judge Gaskell’s logic up until ordering a recount. Wilbur argued that state law states that the remedy for the issue of someone voting without proper ID is not to remove their vote, so the outcome will not likely change even if the recount does find votes from people who did not present proper ID. Wilbur therefore asked Judge Gaskell to declare Vidas the winner and dismiss the case.
“To send it back to board (of canvassers) members who were going to be arguing that even if they, and they don’t have access to that stuff (voter ID information),” said Wilbur. “They look at the ballots, it is not apparent in the ballots who cast, or whether they produced the improper ID or not. They don’t have that information. And even if they were able to find it through hearings and so forth, I believe that there’s no penalty for that, because it would not remove valid votes of other people. …. I don’t believe that that would be done, because it’s not a statute that requires a voter to identify themselves. Obviously, poll workers identify, recognize these people and allowed them to vote if the allegation is correct.”
Judge Gaskell said regardless, the only way to confirm the unanswered questions surrounding the outcome was to reexamine the vote totals.
“As this court sits here this afternoon, I cannot look anybody the eye and tell them that these allegations are correct, that they have merit, or whether there’s absolutely no merit to them at all,” said Gaskell. “But in regards to getting this process right, that’s the only thing that this court could come up with in regards to being fair.”
Gaskell added that if the recount produces an outcome with a clear winner and everyone is agreement, the matter does not need to come back to the court.
Add comment