May 8, 2025
VERNON COUNTY (TOWN OF LIBERTY), Wis. – The town of Liberty Board of Canvassers met on Wednesday, May 7 after Vernon County Circuit Court Judge Judge Timothy Gaskell ordered them to reexamine the recount results in a town supervisor race from the April 1 election. This would be the third time that the results for the race were examined to determine the winner.
On election night candidates Jason Vidas and Carrie Vanek appeared to be tied and the election staff at the town hall used a coin flip to determine the winner. Vidas asked for a recount and it was determined that one of the candidates on the ballot had witnessed an absentee ballot, a practice that is not allowed under Wisconsin law, so one ballot was thrown out and Vidas gained one vote giving him the win, 82-81.
Vanek then challenged that outcome on the premise that the correct remedy for the absentee ballot infraction should have been the loss of a vote for only that candidate that made the error (town chair Orlin Engh). Vanek’s challenge pushed the issue to Vernon County Circuit Court. In a response to that court challenge, Vidas revealed in his appeal that there was evidence that Vanek had also improperly witness someones ballot while she was also a candidate. Vanek admitted that in court, but Judge Gaskell then revealed that Vanek had brought forward more information that there had been votes cast in the town of Liberty by individuals using out-of-state drivers licenses. That caused Gaskell to send the issue back to the Liberty Board of Canvassers to 1. draw down the ballots for absentee ballot infractions for Engh and Vanek. 2. determine what to do about any votes cast with questionable identification.
The Wednesday, May 7 meeting included the Liberty Board of Canvassers Kay Starr, Albert Miller, Cathy Linskens, County Clerk Jerry Pedretti, Town Clerk Sharon Engh and the two candidates Vanek and Vidas. Vidas was represented by Attorney George Wilbur. Town Chair Orlin Engh was in attendance along with a number of members of the public and poll workers who were at the polls on election day.
The first task was to draw down the ballots to remedy the absentee ballot witnessed by Vanek. The result of that was that both Vanek and Vidas lost one vote. That put the total at 81-80 with Vidas ahead.
From there the debate centered on what to do about two ballots that allegedly had been cast with Illinois drivers licenses. Board of Canvass member Albert Miller said he was the person who accepted the ID from those two voters and he remembered the people who presented the Illinois licenses. Miller said he documented to question in the voter log. Miller said the voters in question did present proof of residence by showing utilities bills, but had not yet switched their drivers licenses to Wisconsin. Miller said he was reluctant to allow them to cast a vote because he recalled they had presented the same ID in the November election, and he had told them they had to change ID by the next election. Miller said he did allow them to cast their ballot, but only after consulting the town clerk made the decision to allow them to cast their ballot.
“I am going to take responsibility because we had the list right there and I should have held that up and said if your ID is not one of these you can’t vote,” said Miller.
“It doesn’t matter now,” said Wilbur. “You could have let them vote provisionally and they could have come back with proper ID because they are registered voters. What it really comes down to is, were they qualified electors? So they used the wrong ID and I can cite case law but it comes down to is, is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not valid voters? So far there is proof they use the wrong ID but that’s as far as it goes. They are registered (with the state) , they live in the town as far as I understand. They are valid voters in the town they just used the wrong identification.”
Under Wisconsin law if a voter has improper ID they can cast a provisional ballot that is held for a period of time and if the voters comes back with proper ID the ballot is then counted. That was not done in this instance.
Wilbur reiterated that the voters in question were qualified electors that were registered with the state to vote and they lived in the township.
“I beg to differ because you don’t know they live here,” said Vanek. “You are making assumptions. You do not know that they live in this town.”
“You don’t know that they don’t live in this town,” said Wilbur.
“Correct,” said Vanek. “It goes both ways.”
“No it doesn’t go both ways,” said Wilbur.
Wilbur pointed out that the burden of proof falls to the party making the allegation to prove someone is not a qualified elector “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The board discussed at length various pieces of evidence about the actual residency of the voters who presented the out-of state ID including comments and information brought forth by those attending the meeting. One pieces of information used for proof of residency at the time of voting was a utility bill for a property in the township, but had a mailing address that was a P.O. Box. Vanek said she looked where their property tax bill was mailed to and said the county records showed the bill is mailed to Illinois.
Wilbur and others pointed out that none of those pieces of information makes those voters not qualified to cast a ballot since they already proved their residency with their online registration.
The board was split in their view with Starr saying she was not comfortable with the possible remedy of removing two ballots at random in a draw down as that would likely remove ballots from voters who had cast their ballot properly.
“If we had done it properly and we had given them provisional ballots, and they would have had the opportunity to go get their passports and come back and vote and we would not be having this discussion,” said Starr. “For whatever reason, and I am not pointing fingers, that is what should have happened. It didn’t, but we can’t undo that now. I think to further penalize them, I don’t know if that’s the proper way to go either. I am not really comfortable with that. If we could identify their actual ballot that would be one thing, but we can’t.”
Miller said he had a hard time accepting that they voted in both the November and April election with improper ID and he was in favor of a two ballot draw down.
Starr said it was the towns responsibility and they allowed them to vote so it should be chalked up to a learning experience and now they know not to allow votes without correct ID, or to allow them to cast a provisional ballot.
“I am going on the idea that we need proof of fraud,” said Linskins. “Or proof of not being a qualified elector. Other than just being boneheaded and bringing the right ID. We, by that I mean we as a team, including our clerk, we let them vote.”
The board voted 2-1 not to do a draw down ballots with Starr and Linskins voting no and Miller voting yes.
The end result of the hour long meeting was that Vidas had 81 votes and Vanek had 80. Vidas was declared the winner and the board agreed to inform the circuit court that the matter had been settled.
Both candidates had positive remarks about the process despite the confusion, twists and turns to get to a final outcome.
“This experience has shown me how essential trust in our election process is to our democracy,” said Vidas. ‘Since Election Day, it’s been a stressful time, and I know there are things I could have done differently. I’m committed to working with the board to make our town government as efficient, transparent, and accessible as possible, and I’m truly grateful for the support I’ve received from the people of Liberty.’
Vanek, despite losing said she will still attend meetings and said the whole process has been a learning experience.
“It was great,” said Vanek. “Because we’ve all learned, and there were mistakes made all around and I don’t think anybody should be pointing fingers at anybody. Now we know going forward….And it was great to have everybody there too…the time the Board of Canvass spent to make their decision, and the way they discussed it, and their thought process was excellent. I’m absolutely 100% pleased with what they did. I really appreciate the Board of Canvass. You know, all these people are volunteers. Essentially, they’re not doing it for the money. I really appreciate their work…I’ve been attending meetings for quite some time, and I’ll still be attending all the meetings, because I love this little town. That’s one of the nice things about it, it’s a small group of people and we can all work together. That’s what makes it so special.”
Add comment