1
1
1
For nomination to the United States Senate by a “major” party, a declaration of candidacy, along with “proof of registration,” ethics compliance and signatures devised under this variable system are required. That is, a candidate of a major party (Republican or Democrat) would include the signatures dependent upon the “total vote” of the state legislature.
1-8-33. Primary election law; nominating petition; number of signatures required.
A. As used in this section, "total vote" means the sum of all votes cast for all of the party’s candidates for governor at the last preceding primary election at which the party’s candidate for governor was nominated.
B. Candidates who seek preprimary convention designation shall file nominating petitions at the time of filing declarations of candidacy. Nominating petitions for those candidates shall be signed by a number of voters equal to at least two percent of the total vote of the candidate’s party in the state or congressional district, or the following number of voters, whichever is greater: for statewide offices, two hundred thirty voters; and for congressional candidates, seventy-seven voters.
C. Nominating petitions for candidates for any other office to be voted on at the primary election for which nominating petitions are required shall be signed by a number of voters equal to at least three percent of the total vote of the candidate’s party in the district or division, or the following number of voters, whichever is greater: for metropolitan court and magistrate courts, ten voters; for the public regulation commission, fifty voters; for the public education commission, twenty-five voters; for state representative, ten voters; for state senator, seventeen voters; and for district attorney and district judge, fifteen voters.
Translated into numbers, in 2008, Democratic candidates for the United States Senate were required to obtain and file 2,162 party member's signatures, while the Republican Party members for the Senate needed 1,062 party members.
Candidates for New Mexico’s First Congressional District were required to file 607 party member' signatures for the Democrats and 329 for the Republicans. In the Second Congressional District, the requirements were 592 party Democrats and 402 Republican Party members, respectively. The Third Congressional District requirements included 959 Democratic signatures and 328 Republican signatures.
Such discrepancies in numbers may not present disparities of great measure when each Congressional District is equalized throughout the United States at 646,952, but a variable system dilutes the opportunity of representation. This is especially so as “minor parties’ and “independent candidates'” signature requirements are based not on a primary election result but upon the same percent of the vote in the General elections, where Republicans and Democrats are mixed into a whole count. This results in greater magnitudes. Minor party candidates for statewide office required 5,592 voter signatures, plus they had to meet the requirements of the election administration in order to qualify for ballot access. Independent candidates for the Senate needed 16,775 voter signatures. Independent candidates for Congress (which are typically localized issues candidacies) were required to file with the First Congressional District, 6,320 signatures, the Second Congressional District, 4,676 and the Third Congressional District, 5,779 signatures.
New Mexico is in accord with much of the continuance of the procedures found in the New Mexico State Supreme Court decision of 1944, Roberts v. Cleveland. The statute defended the principle that a “political party shall have the right to select its own candidate and that such right was protected by the Legislature.” Apparently then, a party switch for a congressional office created a legal controversy in addition to a 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 were also held state wide until a later Court ruling required district wide, rather than state wide elections. The understanding at the time was that the Party would apportion the state and federal candidates. This would mean that statutes providing that no person shall become a candidate for nomination for any office prior to the issuance of the Governor’s proclamation could not be unconstitutional as a result of denying a candidate who was covered by upholding the restrictions of equal protection.
Thus, New Mexico case law reflects opinions as a laundry list which “tend to confuse and frustrate those who participate ...Rational results within the framework of our system are not likely to be reached” and the public should consider only “serious candidates.”
Historically New Mexico has gone through three phases of selection process.
The convention method 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 by the Democratic Party forces of Congressman Anderson, while those general supporters of Senator Chavez favored continuing the system of party selection. During this phase, a diverse number of persons posted the required bond amounts and declarations of candidacy. About a decade later, there was a general consensus for a modified selection process insofar as the wide open primaries system tended to encourage some party switching between the major parties. It also tended to create an array of names of persons without a modicum of reasoned success in election. They were simply competing for ballot placement. Thus a modified system of selection was adopted.
The candidates of major Parties “would be serious candidates” who had not only survived the process of legal challenge which comes subsequent to the filing of a declaration of candidacy, but they would have accomplished a showing of 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 makes a successful initiative for additional signature requirements. Essentially this procedure provides for a renewed declaration and the resubmission of signatures, or an additional qualification.
In 2008, there were three candidates of the major parties for the Senate. Each was an incumbent Congressman. Each received their “pre-primary convention designation” and was certified for ballot placement. Congressional candidates seeking to fill their vacating seats did not fare so easily through the election administration. Two candidates received legal challenges which the state district courts did not uphold, while several others did not meet the requirements of 20% for the pre-primary convention. Some not receiving the 20% pre-primary designation reaffirmed their candidacy by submitting additional signatures. Some candidates were not certified for ballot access.
The disparity is heightened by the provision in the Election code that bars a candidate, who was unsuccessful in the pre-primary convention, from “bolting” and seeking a general election designation from a different party or a designation as unaffiliated.
A similar ban is placed upon candidates who successfully appear on the ballot, but who have not won that party's nomination.
