D. Question of Law Likely to Recur

canvassers made a counting error. According to the Wiegand Court, where the outcome is challenged in recount proceedings, “the canvassers or the court will examine with the aid of the ballots into the fact in issue” (emphasis added). Furthermore, quoting State ex rel Schuetz v. Luy, 103 Wis. 524, 528, 79 N.W. 776, it reiterated that “In a judicial controversy. . .over the result of an election, it is the duty of the court to rectify [omissions or mistakes]” (emphasis added). This is mandatory language, the language of rights. This outlook did not accord great deference to canvassers: the weight accorded to the determination of the canvassers was merely that of “provisionally preferred testimony” which is secondary evidence to the ballots themselves, fading in importance once the ballots themselves were opened and examined. The Court of Appeals, in deciding this contest, perhaps considered parts of Wiegand the Petitioners rely on to be mere dicta as it appears to overlook the Petitioners’ citations of Wiegand as controlling authority. Compare, Pet-App. 101-103, with Petitioners-Appellants Brief. If that is correct, then the criteria for granting review of the “Contested elections” law issue raised by this case is even more strongly supported, seeing as it would

17