The liberal view is that these 14,000 votes were fraudulent. My understanding is the same as yours, however, the liberals are crying foul because they thought their candidate won the election by 200+ votes. Due to the timing of it all, they suspect fraud.
Of course, the same criteria did NOT apply in that Al Franken election in Minnesota, when new numbers, math errors, and uncounted votes kept appearing for Franken until he ended up winning.
Apparently the Democrats think that zero was an acceptable count from the city of Brookfield.
Apparently it was noticed that zero votes had been reported for Brookfield. I think that this is how it was discovered that these votes had not been reported to the AP.
Keep in mind, Nickolaus is not the custodian of those votes. The election supervisor in the city of Brookfield has them (they're apparently paper ballots). Nickolaus has no access to them. All she has access to is the report she received from the city of Brookfield. The election supervisor from Brookfield agrees with the explanation provided by Nickolaus, saying that the votes now being reported are exactly what she submitted on April 6, the night of the election, to Nickolaus, as well as to the local press, which reported the exact same figures in the local paper as those released yesterday. The Democrat member of the canvassing board also agrees that it was a mistake of Nickolaus completely omitting the city of Brookfield's vote count in her initial submission to the state.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...119410124.html
What authority does AP have anyway?