OpEdNews - Diary: About Roadkill on the Political Highway of 2008

The purpose of the campaign in the First Judicial District was in part to cure New Mexico's pathelogical schizophrenia of administration. One the surface, and no more depth than a printed word, it provides assurances to such things as "equal protection" "due process" , rights of an elective franchise, "that there shall be no other qualifications, except as herein provided and that "the Supreme law of the land is the Constitution".

::::::::

Response to Motion to Governor Bill Richardson Motion to DismissOn Qualified Immunity , Lack of Personal Participation, Etc. At all times since January 1, 2003, Governor Bill Richardson has been entrusted with the public’s trust and honor in the administration and operations of the State of New Mexico. The solemn oath for faithful service in the duties of the office bears highest regard to the laws of the State, the State’s constitution, and the Constitution of the United States. In the course of the duties of the Governor of the State is the duty to issue a proclamation of elections of the future state government and Federal Representatives. The source of the state government offices is the constitution of the state. The source of the federal officials qualifications is the United States Constitution. The mechanism of the election code conducted by the States is presumed to be in compliance with both Federal and state requirements. State requirements are “those purposed to securing secure the secrecy of the ballot, purity of elections and guard against the abuse of the elective franchise under the election code of the State. For Federal requirements, the Voter rights acts and amendments serve as one measure of a series of requirements. While the Governor is not the “chief election officer” of the state, he participates in the certification that the elections were free and proper in each phase of the ballot process. Governor Richardson is the Executive State Officer of ‘State canvassing Board’ and declares election results. (NM State Constitution, Article V, Section 2.) Before continuing, I want to make it clear that the intent and involve of Governor Bill Richardson is not based on any personal vendetta. I have met him on several occasions and found him to be warm and personable. I found his reflections of President Teddy Roosevelt reflective of a character which is bound for greatness. I have supported his public campaigns with time, effort and money. But it is with his official Administration, conduct and supervisory authority in elections that this case originates. And upon the adherence of the Constitution, so that my rights and the rights of others are not further removed, this action has been taken.. Perhaps the Governor does not recognize that certain practices violate Federal or state requirements. What is certain is that there is a variable signatory system directly contrasting the principle of “one person, one vote.” New Mexico is filled with weighted districts. And shifting precincts, upon a basic apportionment system that racially, politically profiled. What is certain is the majority of the legislature face no opposition. What is certain is that “additional requirements” are given some candidates, while others are given preferences. What is certain is that several candidates faced arbitrary court challenge, which neither present a compelling state reason to excise a candidate nor present that the true objector is a opposing political force. We can conclude that New Mexico’s statutes is chocked full of exclusionary devices. But those are statewide issues to attend. In the instant cases, of the licensure requirement, it is clearly an unholy and patently unconstitutional process. Over 955 signatures voluntarily signed their names to the nomination petition. By axiom, that is a political minority. Being barred from the ballot of the people undoubtably impairs the opportunity of political process. In Thornburg v. Gingles 478 US 30 (1986), “minorities’ were not strict upon issues of race or color, but “to the political processes leading to nomination or election…are not equally open to participation by members of the protected class. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides (in part) that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or due process of law. In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, which also held that the state’s conditioning the right to vote on the payment of a fee or poll tax, classifications which might impinge on fundamental rights and liberties—such as the franchise—must be closely scrutinized. In entering his signature and authority to the election results, the Governor is offering as valid, true and bona fide the results of those elections—as if they were not contaminated. As if the result did not include measures beyond the state’s limitations under the Tenth Amendment. Or as if the variable system and pre-primary requirements with frozen candidacy requirements—each of which leads to some exclusions, and in the totality of circumstances, promote the perpetuation of outdated and outmoded system. In certifying the results, the Governor is also assuring that No citizen was to be deprived by the processes of the state, excepting under due processes of law. Yet the Citizens Committee, and the signatories, and this candidate stand deprived in the absence of due process and equal protection. They stand silenced and excluded upon the various justice and legal issues of the First Judicial District. It should not go lightly that the sitting Governor can avoid official discussion of the culture of elections and the particulars that a sitting judge did add additional qualification to the state constitution in stating a license was required to run the state constitutional office of District attorney. It is a significant statewide issue that an obscure “case law’ could be misused and interpreted to to deny a secured right “to seek public office. It is a significant statewide issue that the Supreme Court of the State would uphold such contravention of law without rational or reason—and treating the significance of appeal as “optional” rather than in the mandatory manner . The effect is on-going, festering and perpetuating.. With the results, we now has “established” an unwritten constitutional override the several sections of assured in the state constitution. (They are in part referred to in the accompanying memorandum) Not the least of which is the adherence to “the Supreme law of the land, “the Constitution” ( Article II, Section 1, State Constitution) and its Article and Amendments. The Twenty-Fourth Amendment directly prohibits “poll taxes”. To remove a candidate for the failure of the license is an affront to the concept that amendment. A license requirement is a payment of a fee to the same degree as a “poll tax”, “road tax”, “filing fee”, ”school tax” “administrative charge”. It provides that the extended right to vote for a candidacy requires a pre-requisite. As the acts relate to The Equal Protection Clause and separately the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment Clause, and under the Voter Rights amendment of 1982, and separately as an excess of that which the Reserved rights of the states can do, the instant action was taken. The 1982 amendment to the Voter Rights Amendment provided: Section 1973aa provides: Application of prohibition to other States; "test or device" defined (a) No citizen shall be denied, because of his failure to comply with any test or device, the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election conducted in any State or political subdivision of a State. (b) As used in this section, the term "test or device" means any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class. The practice of specious challenges predated the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. They were often used in the former confederate states for the sole purpose of ballot exclusion of “undesirable” candidates. In New Mexico, the purpose was often stated as to maintain ‘serious candidates” or so not “confuse the public” with choices. In the instant case, the core is making clear the constitutionality of such practices. The Voter Rights amendment provided “that to make clear that a violation of § 2 could be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone, rather than having to show a discriminatory purpose, and to establish as the relevant legal standard the "results test." Section 2(a), as amended, prohibits a State or political subdivision from imposing any voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or any standards, practices, or procedures that result in the denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color. Section 2(b), as amended, provides that § 2(a) is violated where the "totality of circumstances" reveals that "the political processes leading to nomination or election . . . are not equally open to participation by members of a [protected class] . . . in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." That which is before the Federal District Court rests upon true events and a lengthy and costly process of law—and for the most part because the State Administration and apparatus abdicated its duty to clarify with reason and rationale as to why and how the candidacy and the political constituency could be so denied. These events occurred in the time of the Administration of Governor Bill Richardson. Governor Richardson is an indispensable party to the integrity and conduct of the elections of New Mexico. His duties continue in office. He is certainly empowered with making the necessary changes to the conduct of elections as the supreme executive power of the state is vested in his person. The election laws provide for “special elections’ which can be proclaimed (Section 1-24-2 ). The several excesses are likely to reoccur if not stricken or recognized. His participation is indispensable. For as much and as for reasons in the memorandum attached, the Petitioners OBJECT to Governor Bill Richardson’s Motion to Dismiss on Qualified Immunity, Lack of Personal Participation, Etc.