From Alternet we have this (h/t furzy mouse):
All votes have been gathered from all precincts, and Kloppenberg has won… by a mere 204 votes. It’s a slim margin, but it’s still a win, and a recount is unlikely to change the result.
The relevance of this news is to Governor Walker and his collective bargaining legislation, of course; JSOnline says:
Much of the court race has been a proxy fight over Walker, with conservatives saying they needed to preserve the current majority on the court and liberals saying they would have a better chance of overturning the collective bargaining measure with Kloppenburg on the court. The two candidates distanced themselves from that talk, saying they would rule impartially on all cases.
And if it gets to recounts, which it will, it gets drawn-out, messy and expensive:
Both candidates received $400,000 in taxpayer money for their campaigns and agreed to largely forego raising private campaign funds.
That public financing system was created in 2009 as a way to minimize instances in which justices have to hear cases involving campaign donors.
But in a recount, Prosser and Kloppenburg would be able to privately raise unlimited sums, according to Kennedy.
No campaign contribution limits would apply. Normally, candidates for Supreme Court who privately fund their campaigns can accept no more than $1,000 from any individual or political action committee.
While the costs of any actual recount will be borne by state and counties, the candidates would need money – and lots of it – to observe the vote counts around the state and do legal work.
And after that, litigation, no doubt:
In one twist, state law calls for Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to appoint the state judge who would hear the case if the loser of a recount in a statewide election goes to court over the outcome. Abrahamson and Prosser have clashed on the court. Prosser’s private remark calling Abrahamson a “total bitch” was the subject of a recent political ad attacking Prosser.