Legislature Ends Without Passing Election Reforms

As expected, the legislature did virtually nothing this session to advance the cause of fair elections and voter participation. In spite of several Resolutions being introduced which would create independent redistricting commissions, automatically register voters, and mandate open primary elections, the legislature failed to act.

Likewise, bills and resolutions to create a state ethics commission and a full time legislature went down in flames. Apparently, legislators don't care that their constituents faith in government is at an all time low. Nor do they want to seriously address the fact that the 2014 election cycle saw the lowest voter participation rate since the Second World War.

The only demographic that seems to have benefited this session were those born between June and November, 2000. They will now be allowed to vote in the June 2018 primary elections, even though they will only be 17 at the time (if they register to vote in a major political party 28 days or more before the primary).

There's always next session...

2016 NM Legislature

Well, here we are again.

The New Mexico State Legislature began its "short session" last week. In spite of historically low voter participation rates, continuing corruption at the highest levels of state government, and if possible, increased levels of vitriol and hatred between the two major parties in the state, election reforms and government accountability are not issues that are taking center stage this year.

The governor more or less controls the agenda, so it is necessary to sneak good ideas into the discussion via resolutions and memorials.

A quick look at the agenda of the House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee (see last year's post on how this committee came to be) reveals that a few important ideas will at least get hearings. All of the following are proposed Constitutional Amendments, meaning that if passed, they will go to the voters in November.

HJR1 proposes to institute an independent redistricting commission, an idea Voting Matters has supported for over a decade.

HJR2 calls for universal registration of all qualified voters, which would eliminate one impediment to voter participation.

HJR3 would create a full-time, salaried legislature, as every other state now has.

HJR5 would establish an independent ethics commission to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by elected officials.

HJR12 would open the primaries to all voters, not just those registered in the major parties.

Time will tell if any of these ideas actually make it through the convoluted committee process for consideration on the floor.

Public Campaign Financing and "Free Speech"

As a candidate who used New Mexico's public campaign financing system in my campaign for Public Regulation Commissioner in 2008, and a member of Santa Fe's Public Campaign Financing Advisory Committee the following year, I want to applaud those in Las Cruces seeking to implement such a system, as well as those trying to 'fix' the system in Albuquerque and statewide.

There is no doubt that big money has tarnished our elections, turning campaigns into obscene races for cash, filled with negative ads. Instead, election campaigns should be discussions of goals and visions that could lead to more engaged citizenry and better functioning government.

In my opinion, the system itself should not need to be fixed. It provides equal funding to participating candidates, and matching funds to counter outside interest groups' (or nonparticipating candidates') spending. It is an excellent system. However, the US Supreme Court disagrees, foolishly equating election spending with free speech.

Even if the analogy of money being the same as speech holds, the Supremes have in the past put limits on free speech. In the timeworn example, one can not falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded firehouse- that 1st amendment right to free speech is outweighed by the safety concerns of the public at large. Similarly, a reasonable Supreme Court would see the danger to our elections, our government, and society as a whole, when they condone the buying of elections by big money interests.

To remedy this, some are waiting for an enlightened Supreme Court. Not me. I think it is time for 'We the people' to tell the Supremes they got it wrong, the only way we can. I am supporting a Constitutional amendment that will once and for all clearly state that "Money is not speech, and corporations are not people".

During elections, and at other times, corporations have been using the 14th, 5th, 1st, and other amendments to get away with murder. They hide behind 1st amendment rights to lie about their products and activities; they use 14th amendment rights to evade government regulations and fees; and of course, they infuse elections with spending that can't be regulated or even monitored in some cases.

Fortunately, a few brave Congresspeople are stepping up to help everyday citizens in this fight. And it is indeed a fight- it may be the civil rights battle that defines our generation. House Joint Resolution 48 would amend the US Constitution to clarify that money is not speech and corporations are not people. It has only has 11 sponsors, so far, but it is exactly what we need to take back our government from the moneyed interests that the Founders warned about.

Yes, your vote matters; and it counts. too

Lessons from Las Cruces

The November Municipal Election results have to make even the most cynical people question their pessimism. Not only were two of the council races extremely close, but a recount of the contests proved that our election system works.

Your Vote Matters

Two of the city's council districts were decided by less than 1% of the votes. Kasandra Gandara won by 18 votes in district 1, while Jack Eakman won his election by a mere 11 votes in district 4.

Overall, about 19% of the registered voters came to cast ballots. Meaning, 81% of Las Crucens did not bother voting.

So, if you think your vote doesn't matter, think again- you and ten friends could have changed (or confirmed) the outcome.

Your Vote Counts

Because of the closeness of the margin, the two losing candidates decided to ask for a recount. They paid the costs to make sure the results were correct, because, you never know, the machines could have malfunctioned or worse.

But it turns out the vote tallies remained unchanged.

Nearly the same thing happened when last year's Commissioner of Public Lands election had a so called "automatic" recount because the margin of victory was within 1/2%, and the change in vote counts was negligible.

So, if you think elections are rigged, think again, because with New Mexico's paper ballot system, all elections are subject to the scrutiny of audits and recounts.

Top Two Primary Elections

Voting Matters has great respect for Bob Perls from his time in the legislature and for his dedication to improving the function of our government and our elections. And I greatly appreciate his efforts to increase voter participation in New Mexico. That said, I highly doubt his suggestion of an open primary top two system will lead to the desired results.

See the commentary at NMPolitics here: http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2015/11/what-new-mexico-politics-can-learn-from-nebraska/

We contend that the main reason for low voter participation is low candidate participation. Two candidates, no matter how different, cannot begin to represent the diversity of New Mexicans.

While the top two system allows for more participation by opening up the primary to more voters, it doesn't actually encourage more participation since at the general election there are still only two candidates on the ballot. Now if Mr. Perls were talking about a top four primary, that would be different.

Let's look more closely at Nebraska's 2014 legislative elections. While 47% turnout is admittedly better than New Mexico's 40%, it still shows that more than half of all Nebraskans did not vote in the general election. And, frankly, their open primary only attracted 27% of their potential voters- hardly something to shout about.

Why? Because of a lack of candidates. 14 of Nebraska's 25 legislative districts had only one or two candidates- all guaranteed to "win" the top two primary and go on to November. And in 21 of 25 districts, the same person who got the most votes in May won the general. If these statistics don't scream "why bother?" to voters, I don't know what does.

While it is hard to argue with the fact that since the primary election is paid for by the state, all citizens should be able to cast ballots, there are other reforms that would do a better job at increasing turnout.

First, get rid of the gerrymandered single seat districts that guarantee "safe seats" for one party or the other, and create an independent redistricting commission.

Second, reduce the number of signatures needed for minor party and independent candidates to get on the ballot. New Mexico's 3% requirement for independent candidates is among the highest in the nation, and prevented even an incumbent member of the Public Education Commission from running for reelection in 2014.

Finally, create a system of universal voter registration, so that voters are not disenfranchised because they weren't aware the registration deadlines and requirements.

Mr. Perls goals are laudable, but the fact remains that having only two candidates on the general election ballot will not increase voter participation.

Why Las Cruces Needs Ranked Choice Voting

This post also appeared at www.nmpolitics.net

City Council candidate Steve Calderazzo's desire to be removed from the November 3 ballot highlights a big problem with our elections. Calderazzo's stated reason for wanting to withdraw is his fear of splitting the conservative vote and seeing his ideological opposite win the seat.

This is always a problem in elections with more than two candidates, since any candidate can win an election with fewer than 50% of the votes. But democracy is established on the idea that "majority rules".

Las Cruces election law somewhat deals with this problem by requiring a runoff election if the leading vote getter does not receive at least 40% of the votes- but, 40% is not a majority, so that doesn't really solve the problem. Plus, a runoff election costs money, for both the candidates and the city. Not to mention, voters are more than ready for the election to be over and don't want to endure another 6 weeks of campaigning, which is why runoff elections almost always have lower turnout than the regular election.

Even more troubling is the current trend, made explicit by Calderazzo's withdrawal, that we are better off with fewer candidates. Voting Matters contends that the plummeting of voter turnout is due in large part to the lack of candidates. New Mexico's 2014 general election had the lowest turnout in 50 years, with only 40% of registered voters bothering to cast ballots. Albuquerque's recent municipal election had its lowest turnout ever, at 8% of registered voters. The Las Cruces municipal election in 2013 also saw only 8% of registered voters turn out.

Having fewer choices on the ballot will not bring more voters to the polls. A better solution can be found with Ranked Choice Voting, sometimes referred to as Instant Runoff Voting. Ranked Choice solves two problems: it accommodates multiple candidates and assures majority winners, without the cost of conducting a second election. And it is simple- a voter merely ranks their candidates in order of preference, 1,2,3. If no candidate gets to 50% on Election Day, the losing candidates ballots are retallied, counting the voters second choice. By process of elimination, a winner can be declared who has 50% support.

Instead of withdrawing and doing a disservice to his supporters, Steve Calderazzo could simply be asking voters who choose him to name his preferred candidate as their second choice. Who knows, he might even win the election that way. Stranger things have happened.

Dianna Duran Resigns

Faced with charges of violating campaign finance law and embezzlement, Secretary of State Dianna Duran resigned her position yesterday. Today, she followed up by pleading guilty to six counts as part of a plea deal that lets her escape jail time and keep her pension.

Duran's tenure was marked by her attacks on voting rights, like claiming 64,000 voters were not legally registered, and illegally removing the Green Party from the ballot after the 2012 election cycle.

But she will be remembered for her own abuse of campaign fundraising and spending. She apparently took money intended for her reelection campaign and used it for personal expenses, and in her first campaign, she falsely named as her campaign treasurer a person who did not serve in that capacity.

The Republicans had a golden opportunity in Duran to show how the office could be run ethically and efficiently. Duran's two Democratic predecessors both ran into trouble with finances, misusing federal money that could have been well spent to help increase voter awareness and participation.

Which begs the question, why do we allow partisanship in the office that oversees elections? Not only the Secretary of State, but all of New Mexico's county clerks, are extremely motivated by election outcomes, especially their own.

It is time for our state legislature to look not only at the merits of an independent ethics commission, but also at a way to take partisanship out of election oversight.

New Mexicans deserve nothing less.

Running Clean in Albuquerque

With elections underway in Albuquerque, Voting Matters wants to thank the candidates who are using the public campaign financing system to run their campaigns. This year, only 3 of the 7 candidates for council opted in to this system that takes private money out of elections.

Those three candidates are Isaac Benton (district 2), Israel Chavez (district 4), and Pat Davis (district 6).

We have long advocated for public financing because winning candidates end up beholden not to any special interest groups, corporations, or wealthy individuals, but rather to the public at large- and that is how it should be. Public financing has been under attack from people who want to be able to buy elections. But Albuquerque has persevered by amending its system to conform with unreasonable court decisions, and we are proud of the city, Issac, Israel, and Pat for demonstrating their faith in fair elections.

Legislature adjourns without passing any election related bills

As expected, last Saturday when the legislature adjourned, they did so without sending any electoral reforms to the governor.

Frankly, there was little hope that anything good would come of the session from the get-go.

A couple of good bills were introduced, like Carl Trujillo's Resolution to create an independent redistricting commission, and Peter Wirth's attempt to expand the public campaign financing system to include legislative candidates. but neither of these even made it out of its first committee.

Bills to allow election day voter registration and permitting parties to invite independents to vote in primaries also both failed. Only a bill cleaning up voter registration procedures made it through.

Noticeably absent this year were bills clarifying new minor party and candidate filing deadlines (currently a new party and all of its candidates must file on the same day). Nor did the legislature address municipalities who want to use Ranked Choice Voting but cannot get compatible voting machines and software.

And we are probably waiting in vain for the state legislature to look into moving to a truly representative democracy by switching to proportional representation, or to enfranchise every citizen through a system of universal representation, as Oregon just moved towards doing.

With the legislature adjourned, the next few posts will look specifically at low voter turnout, and ways that our country could reclaim the mantle of world's greatest democracy by turning these abyssmal figures around.

HB 340- Voter ID

The near complete lack of attention to election issues in this year's legislative session has been frustrating, to say the least.

One bad bill worth watching is HB 340, which would require voters to show state issued ID cards in order to cast their ballots. HB 340 passed both Government and Judiciary Committees last week and is scheduled for a floor vote today.

If it passes, it will head over to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain fate.

HB 340 does carry a provision to ensure that potential voters can be provided "provisional" IDs at no charge- if they can go down to their county clerk's office- not always an easy task for a person without a driver's license living in a rural area.

Then, in a further twist of malevolence, the bill stipulates that the counties will be reimbursed from the state's public campaign financing fund!

But the oddest thing about HB 340 is the proposal to include photos of all voters on the voting rosters supplied to each precinct.

Can you imagine being told you cannot vote because you don't look like the picture on your driver's license?

It is nearly as bizarre as Rep Patne's suggestion (HM 11) that you need to submit to a retinal scan or give a fingerprint in order to vote.

Watch this last week closely, it will be like a shell game trying to keep track of what is going on in Santa Fe. Nothing up their sleeves?

Another low turnout election

Silver City held its municipal election Tuesday March 3, reelecting two incumbents. District 3 Councillor Jose Rey received 48 votes, or 2.5% of registered voters in the district.

In the contested district 1 race, a little more than 10% of registered voters came to the polls, with Cynthia Bettison defeating Ronald Perez, 137-54. This was the second election that the two have squared off.

The voter participation rate for the election was 6.4%, according to the Gila regional Community News at www.gilaresources.net.

Two years ago, neither Bettison nor Rey had any competition, and a mere 46 voters showed up to show their support.

We once again have to express wonder at how we can make democracy matter. Clearly, we need to find ways to encourage more candidate and voter participation.

Joe Monahan on Election Issues

If you don't regularly read Joe Monahan's blog, I highly recommend it. Joe has been reporting on New Mexico politics for decades, and has a well developed point of view. Recently, Joe has covered some electoral issues of importance to Voting Matters readers.

Yesterday, over at www.joemonahan.com, Joe commented on the unworkability and lack of importance of the bill to move the major party primaries to March, echoing some of what was posted at Voting Matters February 16.

And last week, Monday, February 23, Joe published my proposed solution to the very low turnout school board elections, reprinted below:

MAIL IT IN

Rick Lass writes of reader Jim McClure's suggestion that we do away with low voter turnout school board elections and have the mayor appoint the board members:

I just don't think it is workable. Very few school board district boundaries would coincide with municipality boundaries, for one. Plus, I still like the idea of electing governing bodies. One idea would be to include school board members on general election ballots--when people are already going to the polls. Of course, naysayers will worry about "too long" ballots. There is a bill introduced this year to move them to the fall of odd-number years, but I don't see how that would help. My suggestion would be that school elections be conducted by mail. Naysayers will be concerned about fraud and ID, etc. But really, it is no different than the absentee ballot system allowed for all other elections, and works very well.

Good idea, Rick. Moving the school board elections to November and/or a mail-in ballot would seem the logical way to raise interest.

Voter Suppression

This interesting article by Saen McElwee appeared this morning on Salon.com. It very clearly and thoroughly addresses why we need better election laws by examining data from surveys of nonvoters. The first link is what appeared on Salon, the second is the original article published last October. Finally, a link to the author's homepage.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/01/our_election_systems_anti_minority_bias_is_even_worse_than_you_think/


http://www.demos.org/publication/why-voting-gap-matters


http://www.seanamcelwee.com/featured-work/

No Progress on Election Issues at the Roundhouse

It seems pretty safe to say that this year's legislative session will not bring about any of the needed reforms to our election system that could help bring more voters to the polls and make New Mexico more of a democracy.

SJR 1, the resolution to create independent redistricting commissions, was tabled almost immediately in Linda Lopez's Rules Committee, with little hope of its being revived. There have been no bills introduced to give the state's independent voters a say in the major party primaries, nor to make it easier for minor party or independent candidates to stand for election.

Creating Public Campaign Financing for legislative candidates has not even had a hearing on the Senate side, and has barely made it through one House committee so far. Merely fixing the existing rules in light of the US Supremes faulty decision equating money and speech has been too much for our legislators to grasp.

In fact, the newly constituted House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee does not have a single significant election related bill on its agenda through Friday, March 6 and the session closes only two weeks later, on March 21.

Folks, it is throw the bums out time. I know it is a long ways until November 2016, but we all need to be looking now at recruiting candidates who will get in there and fight for fair elections and democracy.

Cheaters

Rules are made to be broken, and noone knows that better than our state legislators.

February 19 was the deadline for introducing new legislation this session. So what did 30 of our esteemed senators and representatives do? They introduced fake bills, of course.

Titled "Public Peace, Health, Safety, and Welfare", these bills have no content. That is right, these are blank bills. There's no there there, as the saying goes.

I suppose these legislators are waiting for something really important to come up, so they can 'amend' the blank bills, creating something from nothing- something they forgot to address during the December 15- February 19 period when they are legally allowed to introduce bills.

It is not as though they might get bored in the next four weeks- there are already over 1300 real bills for them to consider, not to mention nearly 300 memorials and resolutions.

Nevertheless, one would not want to be caught unawares, and it can never hurt to keep an ace up one's sleeve.

Proportional Representation in the Media

The Atlantic has a thorough and interesting article on the advantages of changing Congressional elections to a proportional representation system (link below). The article talks about the problem of gerrymandering and the limited success of bipartisan redistricting commissions in the six states where those are used.

The article points out real problems with the current system, for example, that Democrats picked up more votes nationwide in 2012 House elections, yet the Republicans picked up 33 more seats!

While the author, Noah Gordon, does mention the wasted vote syndrome, he does not point out a consequence- that more people would vote if they did not feel their votes were going to be wasted.

Most countries that use Proportional Representation have much higher voter turnout because PR eliminates the wasted vote. In addition, more people feel they have a representative in the legislature because there are more representatives from minor parties.

Here in the US, fewer people are registering as members of the Dems or Reps than ever before. Polls show a majority of people want to see more parties emerge (58%, according to a recent Gallup poll). In 2014, nearly 3 million voters chose someone other than a major party nominee when they cast their ballots- that is a lot of 'wasted' votes.

If we want more voter participation and a government that more accurately reflects the will of the people, Proportional Representation is the solution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/voting-for-a-new-way-to-vote/385489/

Universal Voter Registration

On this blog, we have repeatedly mentioned universal voter registration as one reform that would increase voter participation in elections. It is an idea which does not get much consideration by policymakers here in New Mexico.

But our friends in Oregon are considering such a bill. HB 2177 was introduced at the request of Secretary of State (and soon to be governor) Kate Brown. It would allow automatic registration of all Oregonians who have a drivers license or state issued ID (through the Department of Transportation).

While this bill clearly will not cover all Oregonians, legislative analysts expect it to double the number of registered voters. This is a huge step towards making elections more accessible to citizens. If this works out, it could then expand to include all citizens, by including lists of taxpayers and others.

We applaud Secretary of State Brown for bringing this up,and will follow its progress closely.

[Thanks to Richard Winger and Ballot Access News for bringing this to our attention]

HB 346- Presidential Aspirations

HB 346 was introduced by Representative Nate Gentry, and would move New Mexico's primary elections from June to March. The goal of this bill, no doubt, is to give New Mexico more clout in the selection of Presidential candidates.

It is no secret that Governor Martinez has national ambitions, and an earlier primary could help her gain power as a kingmaker- New Mexico could see an influx of Presidential candidates if our primary is seen as influential.

Similarly, former governor Bill Richardson, when running for President, convinced the legislature and the Democratic Party to hold caucuses in February. These caucuses (which were not really caucuses, but party-run primaries) clearly gave Richardson a minor, temporary boost in his ill-fated run.

One has to wonder why Governor Martinez does not use the already existing presidential caucus system to boost her name recognition and New Mexico's influence in the national selection process. It would almost certainly be easier to convince the Republican Party to hold a caucus than to convince the legislature to move the primary for all elected offices, from President and Congress all the way down the ballot to county clerks and sheriffs.

There are a slew of issues with moving the primary forward by three months. One is addressed in the bill- namely, that party conventions would now have to be held in the holiday heavy month of December. This could keep a lot of everyday people from attending and increase the 'party hack' element that these conventions naturally attract.

Not addressed by the bill is the fact that most municipal elections are held in March. This would create confusion for voters as to which election to go vote for a candidate, as well as the need for voters to go to the polls twice in March (once for municipal elections and once for the primary).

Secondly, a March primary would be difficult for incumbent lawmakers, who are forbidden by law from soliciting donations while the legislature is in session- in even number years that is mid-January through mid-February- critical campaign time for a mid-March election.

Finally, a March primary would play havoc with newly formed and existing minor political parties, whose filing dates are by law three weeks after the primary. This issue is not addressed in the current form of the bill, either, and a federal court recently struck down new Mexico's April filing deadline as unconstitutionally early.

It is unfortunate that our leaders are more concerned about increasing their own standing than with dealing with the systemic problem of lack of participation in elections. The turnout at the 2014 party primaries was around 20%, and moving them to March is not about to address this travesty.

Real reforms that encourage quality candidates involve getting money out of politics via public campaign financing and strict limits on dark money groups, making elections competitive with independent redistricting commissions and proportional representation, and making sure every eligible citizen is registered to vote.

SoS Dereliction of Duty

According to this AP story, http://www.scsun-news.com/silver_city-news/ci_27492938, a mere 4% of all fines imposed by Secretary of State Dianna Duran during the 2012 and 2014 election cycles were collected. Slightly over 33% were waived, and the remainder were simply overlooked.

The majority of the nearly 2000 fines are no doubt for late filing or for missing or incorrect information in the filing. But one has to wonder whether PRC candidate Ben Hall was ever fined for his blatant misuse of public funds, when he chose to pay himself to be a candidate last year, and whether that fine was collected.

It is ironic to see this report come out as the legislature is in session, and we are so focused on improving laws to make elections more fair and more transparent. But all the good laws on the book won't matter if we don't have elections officials who are willing to enforce those laws.

Not to mention, the state could use the money!

HB 405: Same Day Registration

Introduced by Senator Jacob Candalaria and Representative Bill McCamley, HB 405 would allow eligible voters to register to vote and cast their ballots on Election Day or at an Early Voting site.

Like HB 150, this bill will help increase voter participation while falling short of the goal of universal registration. Nonetheless, this more comprehensive bill would make a positive impact on the pathetically low turnout we have been seeing in New Mexico.

According to Demos (www.demos.org), in 2012 over 1,500,000 voters in ten states registered and voted using same day registration. Same day registration would improve voter turnout, clean up inaccurate voter rolls, and reduce the need for provisional ballots

This bill has been assigned to the new HGEIC, but has not yet been scheduled. If it passes HGEIC, it also goes to House Judiciary before reaching the floor. Please call Rep James Smith and other members of HGEIC (listed in last Saturday's blog entry) and urge a "do pass".

In other developments, SJR 1 was tabled by the Senate Rules Committee. Apparently, members of the committee are reserving the right to gerrymander their districts in an undemocratic effort to keep their seats.