On Tuesday, June 22, the office of the Secretary of State refused to accept petitions and filing papers from Green Party Congressional candidate Alan Woodruff. Interrim Director of Elections Don Franciisco Trujillo, the fifth person to hold the position in four years, declined to accept the petitions because the Green Party of New Mexico is no longer a qualified party, according to news reports.
If it is true that the Green Party is no longer a qualified party, then the Secretary of State has been in violation of the Election Code, which clearly states that upon making a determination that a political party is no longer qualified, they must notify the county clerks, who must then immediately notify all members of the party. Presumably, this is so party members can either join a qualified party or circulate petitions to requalify the party.
A few phone calls to county clerks revealed that the office of the Secretary of State has not notified them of the removal of the Green Party. A conversation with Don Francisco Trujillo also revealed that only the Libertarian Party is qualified to run candidates this year, also a clear violation of statute. Both the Independent Party and the Constitution party would remain qualified based on section 1-7-2 of the state election code, which says a party remains qualified for two elections after qualifying as a minor party, which both did during the 2008 election cycle.
These and other shenanigans have been going on ever since the Green Party qualified as the first new major party in New Mexico history back in 1994, when several of its candidates exceeded the 10% threshold to become a major party.
The state legislature has made it more difficult for minor party and independent candidates by moving up the date by which one must declare party membership and the candidate filing date, and attempted to make the major party threshold impossibly high.
And the Secretary of State and Attorney general's offices have colluded to reinterpret clear election law to all but eliminate the participation of minor party and independents from our elections.
As it stands, there will be very few contested elections in New Mexico in 2010, with 36 of 70 state house seats unopposed (yes, that is more than half!). Part of this is due to gerrymandered districts, but a large part of it is also due to our state's policy of shutting out voices of all but the socalled mainstream parties.
Personally, I am outraged by this attack on democracy, and I hope you are too.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Ballot Security
Election workers in Rio Arriba County have done it again. According to stories in the Rio Grande Sun, www.riograndesun.com, ballot boxes have been illegally opened since the election.
According to the stories, Rio Arriba County Clerk, Moises Morales, opened ballot boxes in his office without the required supervision of the county canvassing board or a district judge. Recently reelected district judge Sheri Raphaelson signed an order allowing the ballot boxes to be opened, but did not stipulate when or where, nor did she ensure that she or a representative be present. It is not clear how the boxes were opened since the district court was supposed to have one of the two keys necessary to open the boxes.
The ballot boxes were apparently opened in search of missing absentee ballots, which should not have been there in the first place. Add this to the fact that Rio Arriba did not report election results until very late (after 2:00 AM), due to ballot boxes not being delivered promptly by precinct judges. This is the same county that saw an election judge take home and keep overnight three ballot boxes during the Democratic Presidential Caucus in 2008.
We have done great work to go to an all paper ballot system in New Mexico, including meaningful audits of elections. But apparently, we still have a long way to go to ensure that the ballots are secure on election day and through the canvassing and auditing period.
According to the stories, Rio Arriba County Clerk, Moises Morales, opened ballot boxes in his office without the required supervision of the county canvassing board or a district judge. Recently reelected district judge Sheri Raphaelson signed an order allowing the ballot boxes to be opened, but did not stipulate when or where, nor did she ensure that she or a representative be present. It is not clear how the boxes were opened since the district court was supposed to have one of the two keys necessary to open the boxes.
The ballot boxes were apparently opened in search of missing absentee ballots, which should not have been there in the first place. Add this to the fact that Rio Arriba did not report election results until very late (after 2:00 AM), due to ballot boxes not being delivered promptly by precinct judges. This is the same county that saw an election judge take home and keep overnight three ballot boxes during the Democratic Presidential Caucus in 2008.
We have done great work to go to an all paper ballot system in New Mexico, including meaningful audits of elections. But apparently, we still have a long way to go to ensure that the ballots are secure on election day and through the canvassing and auditing period.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Primary Election
Last week's primary saw a very low turnout, approximately 28% of eligible voters made it to the polls. And that 28% only includes people registered in one of New Mexico's two major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. Another 200,000 New Mexicans are not even eligible to vote in primaries either because they are registered in other parties or they "decline to state" a party affiliation. Still more eligible voters have not even registered at all, meaning the percent of potential voters that participated in the primary this year is more like 10-15%.
How does the state justify spending over $4 million for an election in which only some taxpayers can participate? Considering the fact that about one out of three new registrants choose no party, it seems like time to change the way parties select their nominees.
The New Mexican's Steve Terrell has already brought up the idea of an open primary, in which any registered voter can vote in any party primary, but the parties are not too excited about letting "non-members" have a say in their decisionmaking process. Another idea being floated about is a "top-two" system, in which any voter can participate, and all the candidates for an office are listed together, with the top two vote getters, regardless of party, being listed on the general election ballot. This has been done in Washington state and is being looked at in other places.
We think the state legislature should take a good look at revamping the election system here in New Mexico. If all the taxpayers are funding these elections, then all voters should have a say. If the parties don't want to allow nonmembers into their nominating process, then the parties should pay for the elections themselves, as the Democrats do with their Presidential "caucus".
Whatever happens, we certainly need to do something to increase participation in our elections.
How does the state justify spending over $4 million for an election in which only some taxpayers can participate? Considering the fact that about one out of three new registrants choose no party, it seems like time to change the way parties select their nominees.
The New Mexican's Steve Terrell has already brought up the idea of an open primary, in which any registered voter can vote in any party primary, but the parties are not too excited about letting "non-members" have a say in their decisionmaking process. Another idea being floated about is a "top-two" system, in which any voter can participate, and all the candidates for an office are listed together, with the top two vote getters, regardless of party, being listed on the general election ballot. This has been done in Washington state and is being looked at in other places.
We think the state legislature should take a good look at revamping the election system here in New Mexico. If all the taxpayers are funding these elections, then all voters should have a say. If the parties don't want to allow nonmembers into their nominating process, then the parties should pay for the elections themselves, as the Democrats do with their Presidential "caucus".
Whatever happens, we certainly need to do something to increase participation in our elections.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Municipal Election Recap
Santa Fe- Neither Ranked Choice Voting nor Public Campaign Financing were used in this election, in spite of being approved by a vast majority of voters in 2008. Technological reasons are delaying Ranked Choice, as the ES&S machines used are not capable of performing the operation, and there is a reluctance to hand tally ballots after the election. As it turns out, all the contested races were won by the incumbents with a majority of the votes.
The Public Campaign Financing ordinance was passed by the council last fall, and is scheduled to begin with the 2012 election. However, there has been no appropriation to begin the fund, which by ordinance must have at least $300,000 in it at the beginning of the election cycle.
One interesting idea brought up as a campaign issue is at large districts for our council. Russell Simon suggested going to four council members elected from districts and four council members elected at large, meaning all voters have a vote for them as in mayor and judge elections. It is an idea worth investigating.
Las Vegas- The municipal home rule charter passed with 56%, and includes trraditional run off voting and a couple of other election code changes. There is some question in the city clerk's office as to whether this counts as an amendment to the existing charter, thereby requiring 60% to pass, but the Municipal League and others seem confident that since the new charter completely replaces the old one, it is a new charter and requires only 50% to pass.
Rio Rancho- Rio Rancho experimented with a new voting method on Election Day this year. Rather than having a polling place for each precinct, they had voting centers strategically placed around the city. Any city voter could go to any voting center and be given a ballot for their precinct.
Finally, as an election judge, I had several people ask me how they know their votes would be accurately tabulated. Our state has excellent audit requirements for state and federal elections, but none exist for municipal elections. I believe people would like to see municipal elections included in our audit laws and I hope we can see that come to pass over the next two years.
The Public Campaign Financing ordinance was passed by the council last fall, and is scheduled to begin with the 2012 election. However, there has been no appropriation to begin the fund, which by ordinance must have at least $300,000 in it at the beginning of the election cycle.
One interesting idea brought up as a campaign issue is at large districts for our council. Russell Simon suggested going to four council members elected from districts and four council members elected at large, meaning all voters have a vote for them as in mayor and judge elections. It is an idea worth investigating.
Las Vegas- The municipal home rule charter passed with 56%, and includes trraditional run off voting and a couple of other election code changes. There is some question in the city clerk's office as to whether this counts as an amendment to the existing charter, thereby requiring 60% to pass, but the Municipal League and others seem confident that since the new charter completely replaces the old one, it is a new charter and requires only 50% to pass.
Rio Rancho- Rio Rancho experimented with a new voting method on Election Day this year. Rather than having a polling place for each precinct, they had voting centers strategically placed around the city. Any city voter could go to any voting center and be given a ballot for their precinct.
Finally, as an election judge, I had several people ask me how they know their votes would be accurately tabulated. Our state has excellent audit requirements for state and federal elections, but none exist for municipal elections. I believe people would like to see municipal elections included in our audit laws and I hope we can see that come to pass over the next two years.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Legislative Session returns
Round one of the legislative session ended last week and none of the bills we were following did very well. Round two starts Monday ad we don't expect any election related bills to be on the Governor's call.
Two positive outcomes were HB 198, which finally clarified ownership and maintenance responsibility for the state's voting machines purchased in 2006. Also passing was HB 127 which allows 16 and 17 year olds to serve as precinct workers.
The various bills to create a state ethics panel never really came together, and there will be an effort during the interim to clean them up and present them as a better bill in 2011.
HB 118, which would have banned political campaign contributions from contractors and lobbyists was left to die in Senate Rules Committee and will be back again next year.
Two positive outcomes were HB 198, which finally clarified ownership and maintenance responsibility for the state's voting machines purchased in 2006. Also passing was HB 127 which allows 16 and 17 year olds to serve as precinct workers.
The various bills to create a state ethics panel never really came together, and there will be an effort during the interim to clean them up and present them as a better bill in 2011.
HB 118, which would have banned political campaign contributions from contractors and lobbyists was left to die in Senate Rules Committee and will be back again next year.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Legislative Session
Another week has passed at the legislature, and there has been some motion with election reform bills. With ten days to go, things are sure to heat up.
The ban on campaign contributions from lobbyists and contractors: HB 118 is now known as the committee substitute for HB 118 and moves on to the House Judiciary Committee where it could be heard as early as today.
Same day registration: HB 123 passed House Consumer and Public Affairs and moves to House Voters and Elections, where it is not yet scheduled. Its "companion bill" is Senate Bill 161 (John Sapien), which passed Senate Rules today and moves to Senate Judiciary. An attempt to attach a mandatory photo ID provision failed.
An "independent" redistricting commission resolution has been introduced as HJR 15 (Karen Giannini) and would appear on the November 2010 ballot as a Constitutional Amendment if it passes both houses. The amendment is problematic as written because it creates a commission that is actually bipartisan and not independent, with the members being appointed by the leaders of the legislature.
Rhonda King's continuing effort to resolve the state's purchase of voting machines in 2006 has been introduced as HB 198. It holds the counties harmless for the purchase and maintenance of the machines other than for ongoing storage. It will be heard in House Voters and Elections this week.
Public Campaign Financing: Both bills face uphill journeys on the Senate side. SB 51 (Eric Griego) would create a public campaign financing system for executive positions but has been scheduled to three committees. SB 67 (Feldman) would clarify the Voter Action Act but has not been ruled germane.
State Ethics Commission: There are a number of bills on both sides that address and implement a state Ethics Commission that are awaiting hearings in House Judiciary and Senate Rules Committees. This will almost certainly result in a compromise bill. Loyda Martinez of Common Cause has an opinion piece that outlines the essentials which I have copied below.
The ban on campaign contributions from lobbyists and contractors: HB 118 is now known as the committee substitute for HB 118 and moves on to the House Judiciary Committee where it could be heard as early as today.
Same day registration: HB 123 passed House Consumer and Public Affairs and moves to House Voters and Elections, where it is not yet scheduled. Its "companion bill" is Senate Bill 161 (John Sapien), which passed Senate Rules today and moves to Senate Judiciary. An attempt to attach a mandatory photo ID provision failed.
An "independent" redistricting commission resolution has been introduced as HJR 15 (Karen Giannini) and would appear on the November 2010 ballot as a Constitutional Amendment if it passes both houses. The amendment is problematic as written because it creates a commission that is actually bipartisan and not independent, with the members being appointed by the leaders of the legislature.
Rhonda King's continuing effort to resolve the state's purchase of voting machines in 2006 has been introduced as HB 198. It holds the counties harmless for the purchase and maintenance of the machines other than for ongoing storage. It will be heard in House Voters and Elections this week.
Public Campaign Financing: Both bills face uphill journeys on the Senate side. SB 51 (Eric Griego) would create a public campaign financing system for executive positions but has been scheduled to three committees. SB 67 (Feldman) would clarify the Voter Action Act but has not been ruled germane.
State Ethics Commission: There are a number of bills on both sides that address and implement a state Ethics Commission that are awaiting hearings in House Judiciary and Senate Rules Committees. This will almost certainly result in a compromise bill. Loyda Martinez of Common Cause has an opinion piece that outlines the essentials which I have copied below.
Ethics Commission
--------------------
Albuquerque Journal
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Ensure Ethics Panel Can Make Difference
by Loyda Martinez, Board Member, Common Cause New Mexico
We're dipping into the last hectic days of another legislative session. As was the case last time around, we're faced with a half dozen different proposals to finally create an independent ethics commission in New Mexico. On the one hand, this is a good thing. It shows an enthusiasm among legislators to have New Mexico join 40 other states in establishing an independent, bipartisan body to field and investigate ethics complaints against public officials. Furthermore, all of the current bills are significantly better than the ethics commission bill that passed the House during the 2009 regular session.
On the other hand, the task of combining these various proposals into a single consensus bill is daunting. Luckily, Sen. Linda Lopez, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee, and Rep. Al Park, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, seem to be up to the task. They both seek to gather the Senate and House versions of these bills, debate the fine points, and come up with one solid bill in each chamber to push through to the legislative finish line.
For good-government advocates, of course, the debate over the fine points is key. Basically, that debate comes down to balancing two equally valid values. First, the commission has to protect the due process rights of public officials accused of wrongdoing. If a commission is set up, it will inevitably receive frivolous complaints that need to be filed in the trash can where they belong. Yet at the same time, a commission must have enough teeth to launch serious investigations of nonfrivolous complaints. Otherwise, New Mexico would just be wasting money it doesn't have.
Balancing these two important values is difficult. Here are the elements Common Cause would like to see in an ideal ethics commission bill:
1) A good commission will have independent subpoena power to ensure the commission's access to key witnesses and relevant documents.
2) A simple majority quorum is the best way to ensure anything gets done. Although requiring a super-majority (or a super-super-majority) for the commission to take any action is tempting, this would be a very unusual step and might well result in a do-nothing commission.
3) Some level of confidentiality regarding ethics commission activities is appropriate to protect the right of respondents. Excessive secrecy, however, will decrease the legitimacy of the commission in the eyes of the public and make it impossible to judge the body's effectiveness. Ideally, only the initial complaint and investigation should be confidential. Once the commission determines that there is enough evidence to proceed to a formal hearing, there is no reason that the proceedings should not become public, and any ultimate finding of guilt or innocence should of course be published. A recent report from the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government does an excellent job of analyzing the issues presented by the excessive emphasis on confidentiality in the current crop of bills.
4) Several of the proposals give the accused access to legal counsel paid for by the state. Under these proposals, if the commission finds that an ethics violation has occurred, the accused has to reimburse the state for the cost of the legal defense. This sounds good on paper, but the expense to the state is unknown and could be quite substantial. By way of comparison, the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission does not offer judges paid legal representation. It's conceivable that such a provision actually would discourage people from filing complaints with the commission because they would feel obligated to hire their own attorney to be on an equal footing with the respondent.
There are a couple other sticking points that aren't a huge concern to Common Cause but that have made it difficult to get a bill through both chambers and on the governor's desk. The big one is figuring out an appointment scheme for the commission that satisfies both the governor and the Legislature. Maybe splitting the appointments right down the middle is the best compromise — with a couple left over coming from the state Supreme Court.
In addition to investigating complaints against public officials, a good ethics commission would have several other duties. For one thing, it would be required to draft a code of ethics for the executive branch, which currently doesn't have one. A commission could also conduct trainings for officials and state employees to help instill a culture of ethics in New Mexico government. Finally, the commission would need to issue advisory opinions to answer questions by government officials about whether or not a specific kind of behavior is or isn't ethical.
Can we finally come together and get this done?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)