::::::::
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
US Constitution, Amendment XVII
New Mexico has a culture of corruption. At the core lay an election code and procedures. They acts as a key of legitimacy to its perpetuation, with imbalanced
Applications contrary to the very principles of “one man, one vote”. Historically , the outcome of elections are foregone conclusions, often the result of uncontested elections, weighted primaries and insiders‘ selection. Reform, with “ethics legislation” striking at the spending of candidacies are dwarf steps (and perhaps fruitless) absent progressive measures of ballot access and the abandonment of rules of exclusion, special interest and party influences.
About a hundred years ago, there was a widespread belief throughout America that there was a manipulation in the process of the method of electing Senators to the United States Senate through the various State legislatures. Evidences arose that the result of the
Legislative selections were often influenced by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through the purchase of legislative seats. Often when these organizations and groups did could not get their candidate selected, there was a deadlock in the Legislatures with the result that US Senate seats were unfilled and vacant.
Throughout the United States there was an increasing popular dissatisfaction. The belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly elected, in the manner which members of the US House were elected. By 1912, as the proposed Amendment was being circulated through States and as New Mexico was being proclaimed the 47th State of the Union, 29 States amended their state laws so to nominate Senators on a more popular basis. Many State afforded the voters more effective control through a primary election to designate their preference for one of several party candidates. The results were ‘unofficially’ transmitted to the Legislatures where legislators elected the winning candidates of the majority. Until the ratification, which came in May 1913, the
foundation of a “common understanding” toward affording popular representation eliminating corrupt practices and no more.
The Amendment used the same language as found in Article I of the Constitution with respect to the election of House members of Congress .It was not long after its ratification that the Supreme Court determined that if a person possessed the qualifications requisite for voting for a Senator, the right to vote for the office was not derived from State constitutions and statutes, but the Constitution itself. States were given the discretion to set reasonable methods to establish voting qualifications .But the method selected needed to act neutrally amongst the candidates and without an abridgement or discrimination. Extended “the right to vote’ is a right to seek public office without onerous qualifications.
Most states adopted a nominating processes which included a primary election for the nomination of party candidates . However, many had “onerous requirements” , such as a poll tax, literacy requirements, and residual residency requirements. Some , like a South Carolina political party required as a prerequisite to voting that the voter “ take an oath that he understands and believes in and will support social , religious, and educational separation”-- though in 1948, the Supreme Court struck down that requirement as invalid and a disregard of the right of the American citizen to exercise his own views and opinion” ( Brown v Baskin).
Until the 1960’s Warren Court, such election controversies were few before the Supreme Court-- averaging about 10 per year. During the years of the Warren Court, the number rose to about 60 per year as the “principle of one man, one vote” was taking hold. Amendment XXIV prohibited the States from requiring property ownership or a “Poll tax” qualifications to vote in any primary or other election “President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” .
In 1966, the Court the Court struck down a Virginia statute which eliminated the poll tax as an absolute qualification for voting in federal elections and gave federal voters the choice either of paying the tax or of filing a certificate of residence six months before the election. Viewing the latter requirement as imposing upon voters in federal elections an onerous procedural requirement which was not imposed on those who continued to pay the tax, the Court unanimously held the law to conflict with the new Amendment by penalizing those who chose to exercise a right guaranteed ( Forsennius v. Harmon).
( Part of the reason for the ratification of amendment XXIV was lack of constitutional challenges to onerous provisions, such as the poll tax.)
As a result of the repeated decisions and the adoption of the Voter Rights Act
( 1966) providing for “one man, one vote, and “ free and proper in every phase of the ballot process” , the several states revised their respective state election codes. The revision, either by new state constitutional process or legislative statutes were often not as
altruistic and principled as the clarity of the VRA and Court decisions. The “reform” measures were often enacted with new subtler and unchallenged obstacles.
In New Mexico, where Constitutional challenges were few, the election code “provides for a “proclamation of the Governor in January”. The effect froze the registrations for eligibility to gain public office. Thus, if a candidate was to seek a party nomination or an independent nomination for the Senate , he would have to be registered as that party or independent member on the date of the proclamation. The candidate would also to reside in that residence through that election year.
Under New Mexico’s scheme, a candidate in the “major parties’ surviving the process of legal challenge which comes subsequent to filing of a declaration of candidacy and supportive signatures is required to obtain 20% of that party’s pre-primary convention vote to obtain ballot positioning in that party’s primary. If the 20% pre-primary convention is not obtained the candidate’s name will not appear on the ballots in the June primary, unless he or she takes an initiative for additional signature requirements. Essentially this provides for a for a renewed declaration and the resubmission of signatures. Practically it is a condition which is illusionary, requiring a doubling of the signatures in a much shorter time period that the preceding signature gathering period. Essentially, the campaign is over in that election cycle.
New Mexico accords much of the continuance of the procedures with New Mexico State Supreme Court decision of 1944, Roberts v. Cleveland. The statute defended the principle that the “political party shall have the right to select its own candidate and that such tight was protected by the Legislature” as apparently a party switch for a congressional office created a legal controversy in addition to the political challenge. The Congressional offices were elected every two years and until 1943, the delegation was one Congressman. (The elections of the second Congressional district was also held statewide until a later Court ruling required districts rather statewide elections) The understanding at the time was that the Party would apportion the state and federal candidates and thus that statutes providing “that no person shall become a candidate for nomination for any office prior to the issuance of the Governor’s proclamation “ is not unconstitutional as denying a candidate covered by the restriction of equal protection” were upheld.
New Mexico requirements also provide a bar to a major party candidate, who finishes second in a party primary thereafter seek an independent or minor party candidacy for the general election ( ala Senator Lieberman in Connecticut in 2006). Party switching was the very basis and purpose of the “Governor’s proclamation”. Lost elections could be redeemed in the next election cycle, and the splintering which the allowance of major party switches by candidates would allow and the potential of consequential party loss was viewed as a bigger devil.
But if they could, they would face the task of gathering 3% of the total vote cast for governor cast in the last general election ( enacted when the New Mexico statutes called for election of the Governor every two years) rather than the requirement of major party candidates who need obtain 3% of the total vote cast for all the parties candidates for governor in the last primary election. As general elections have a much larger number of votes cast than primary election, signature requirements are generally 8 to 10 fold over that of major party candidates. Annotated statutes showed no challenges to the validity of numbers-- whereby the federal standard of a quantum of the vote is a discernable. What is discernable readily is that the qualifications for independent (of major party candidacy) is discernibly greater that the requirements of signatures for the major party candidate by magnitudes . Thus “bolts” from party regularity are discouraged by the statutes. By axiom are “unequal” and weighted with a diluting effect . And again those “pre-qualified candidates’ are those who were “registered independent on the day of the Governor’s proclamation more than 180 days prior to the general elections.
Seeming there is a tone of New Mexico statutes which “discourage’ laundry list ballots . New Mexico caselaw reflects opinions as they “tend to confuse and frustrate those whole participate”…Rational results within the framework of our system are not likely to be reached.
Historically New Mexico has gone through three phases of selection process: The convention method which balanced the interests of the State through party appointment and representative process. In the 1960’s there developed the “wide open primary system”. This had been favored in the Democratic party forces by Congressman Anderson, while those general supporters of Senator Chavez favored continuing the system of party selection. The diverse numbers of persons who posted the required bond amounts and declaration of candidacy. About a decade later, there was a general consensus that modified selection process as the wide open primaries system tended to encourage some party switching between the major parties and a array of names of persons without a modicum of reasoned success in election, but for ballot placement. Thus a modified system of selection was adopted.
Ballot access for any candidacy is a vital part of the election process. (Citizens Committee v. O’Malley ) Candidates whose name does not appear upon the ballots cast, and requiring a “write-in are practically foreclosed from obtaining election in a statewide election. ( The instances where “ write-in’ are successful are usually municipal elections or small districts where few people cast a vote.) As such, write in campaigns are generally viewed “symbolic”.
Taken in the totality of circumstances, the statutory scheme of New Mexico has several restrictions or ‘trap-doors for candidates’ which have been employed in previous campaigns for the Senate. These are, contrary to the explicit Amendment which provides for ballot position and popular election “in the same manner as the most numerous branch” of the Legislature. While the Amendment does not require “perfect symmetry” in the provision of the election to the members of Congress ( US v. Ala.), the amendment for does require that the established voting qualification do not transgress the federal Constitution .(US v. La). And New Mexico’s scheme is askew.
Write Governor Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Mary Herrera to “do the right thing by their administrative powers. Leadership shouldn’t talk the talk of freedom and elections , but prove the statement of President Lincoln that the heralding of our democracy and republic is a beacon to rest of the world. There leadership can set the standards that “ Elections are to be free and proper rather than foregone and foreclosed.
Guidelines on the 2008 election cycle will be published in September.
LET THEM KNOW WE NEED CHANGES NOW>
Write today at the following addresses:
Governor Bill Richardson Honorable Mary Herrera
Executive Office of the Governor Office of the Secretary of State
STATE OF NEW MEXICO STATE OF NEW MEXICO
State Capitol Building, Room 400 State Capitol Annex, Suite 300
Santa Fe, NM 87501 Santa Fe, NM 87503
Email: Email: nmsos@state.nm.us
