The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) voted 5-0, with one abstention, to reject the recall petition against Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) Thursday. After confusion over which district the recall petition signatures should come from, the commission decided that the recall organizers did not have enough valid signatures from any of the districts that could have possibly been involved. 

Recall organizers began the effort to remove Vos, the longest-serving Assembly Speaker in state history, from office over complaints that he was not doing enough to advance their belief that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump and that the election officials involved in that election should be punished. The petition began after Vos refused to move forward with an effort to impeach WEC Administrator Meagan Wolfe. 

The recall effort began as the state’s political maps were in limbo, however. In December, the state Supreme Court struck down the previous maps and Gov. Tony Evers signed new maps into law in February, but those maps don’t go into effect until the election this fall. 

With the previous maps declared unconstitutional and the new maps not yet in effect, it was unclear which district recall organizers should collect the required number of signatures. Old Assembly district 63 contains the voters that elected Vos in the first place, but it doesn’t technically exist any more. The new Assembly districts 33 and 66 contain some of those voters, but also many who did not put Vos into office. The WEC and state Department of Justice had sought clarification from the Supreme Court on which district should apply, but the Court declined to weigh in. 

Last month, the recall organizers filed thousands of signatures as part of their recall petition, but those petitions included signatures from all three of the potential districts, as well as many others that appeared to be forged or from voters who didn’t live in any of the districts. While the legal questions surrounding the petition worked through the Court, the statutory deadlines of a recall effort continued. No matter what district was used, Commission staff determined there were not enough valid signatures to force a recall election this summer. 

On Thursday evening, the commission met to decide on Vos’ challenge to the validity of the petition signatures. Vos’ attorney, Matthew Fernholz, said the commission should take the easy option and reject the recall petition, while adding that there should be a formal investigation into the alleged forgeries in the petitions. 

“So based on the review of all the signatures, and the challenges that have been sustained, the easiest thing and most straightforward path for WEC today is simply to reject and deny the recall petition,” Fernholz said. “They’re woefully short, regardless of whether we’re operating under the old 63rd Assembly district or the new 33rd Assembly district.”

Commissioner Ann Jacobs told Fernholz that the body is statutorily prevented from initiating investigations, adding that if Vos would like an investigation completed, he needs to submit a complaint to the agency. 

The recall organizers were represented at the hearing by former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman. Gableman was hired by Vos following the 2020 election to investigate allegations of fraud. After being allowed to continue his review for over a year without any results, Vos fired the former judge. Gableman has since turned on Vos, frequently appearing at anti-Vos events and supporting his 2022 primary opponent. 

Gableman spent about 30 minutes arguing with commissioners and WEC staff over whether or not a staff member told the recall organizers that the signatures should come from the 63rd District. At one point in the argument, Jacobs asked for a point of order after Gableman started insulting the agency’s attorney. 

“Well, you managed to be arrogant, condescending and wrong in a matter of about 20,” Gableman said before Jacobs cut him off. 

Gableman also refused to say whether or not the recall petitioners had gathered enough signatures from any of the districts because he doesn’t “know the basis for all the removals of the signatures.” 

Twice, Gableman mentioned that the recall organizers had met with the FBI about potentially investigating the alleged forged signatures, and he discussed what the petitioners are calling “recall 2.0”— their second attempt at forcing a recall election. Much of the argument between Gableman and the commissioners centered around his request that they declare which district the signatures should come from and their refusal to do so because a request for an official advisory opinion from the commission has not been made. 

The Commission ultimately approved a motion that rejected the recall on the grounds that there weren’t enough signatures from the old 63rd or new 66th districts and that the new 33rd district should not be used. Commissioner Mark Thomsen abstained from the vote after arguing for an amendment to the motion to narrow it to include just the lack of valid signatures from the 63rd district.