The purpose of the campaign in the First Judicial District was ( in part ) to cure New Mexico’s badly broken administration.
New Mexico offers a pattern which on the surface 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”.
In the realities of the day to day, New Mexico’s administration of justice is often abusive, specious or corrupted. There is no proper defense to the breaches of the Constitution.
The motion for a collateral defense of the counsel for Governor Bill Richardson provides an example of this characteristic trait of New Mexico. It is a matter of the“opposite” – a circular reasoning that omits the central question that was presented to the court: that question of constitutional integrity.
In a motion of “collateral defense”, the Counsel is presenting that the decisions of the state District Court judge is ‘final’. The motion lacks some vital facts—and omits consideration and constitutional foundation.
It is a fact that a New Mexico First District Judge Sanchez found the candidate ‘learned in the law’ and not qualified as a “licensed attorney’. The Counsel omits that the State Judge “added another qualification which was not as the New Mexico state constitution articulates, and directly opposite that state requirements additionalqualification cannot be . The qualifications of candidates for the public office are constitutional to the state and there can be no other except herein.
The Counsel’s ‘collateral defense’ omits that the effort was to reduce the viable political participation and potential to engaging the badly broken system from
within. The totality includes that it was a barrier established to deprive the active participation in the Office of the District Attorney. They may as well have put on robes and hoods and declared "they were the law here"--and that was final.
The Counsels’s motion implies that an appeal thereafter to the state Supreme court was handled in a manner that correctly supported the state district judge’s decision. From what he presents, the case was “duly heard’ as mandatory. That it issued a reasoned andrationaled opinion as to the interpretation of the state laws and constitution. And that that reasoned and rationaled opinion was grounded with a focus upon the rights of equal protection and due process as are in “the supreme law of the land”. ( NM state constitution, Article I ). Again it is the case of the opposite.
There may be a basis of “public consumption” to regulation of lawyers and the legal communities, but it is not the basis for which a candidacy may be effectively expelled.
Let me be clear, had the state Supreme done its duty—and that is truly “hear the case with specifics of the events and issue”, there would be a solid foundation to his motion.
Had the Court done as they did in their own case citation , Chavez, had done—clearly and precisely articulated the reasons for or against the placement of a candidate on the ballots, there would be no case before this Court.
The case facts provide otherwise. What Counsel is presenting is faux justice. New Mexico’s state supreme court abdicated its obligation and duty. When it “denied the mandamus” to provide restoration to ballot , it treated the appeal as optional to be heard—and effectively commended the patronage and corruption of the First Judicial District. In this case, the State supreme court provided in most backhanded way that a State court Judge can issue an order which usurps several Constitutional rights—both of the state and federal constitutions—and nothing would be said. The result is a superior
law and unwritten law emphasizing that the rights of the Constitution are secondary to the momentary issue.
The State Supreme Court provided a barefaced form of a decision. The issue was not defined, nor basis of reason as to how that decision was arrived at by the
majority. These are assurances by the State and statutes. Further, the state Supreme Court did not provide any mention of the State’s interest in excising the candidate from the ballot process.
Instead of its mandatory duty, the Court “considered whether to hear the case” and left hollow its rationale. It implicitly left an ‘unwritten constitutional amendment’ to the State constitution which provided that “learned in the law” is not the meaning of the constitution but that “licensed attorney” is the requisite.
From that moment, denial of due process and equal protection was absolute.
“No man is above the law, nor any man beneath it.” But in the realities of the day to day, many are beneath it. It is a system which is traditional to New Mexico. Yet it is asoutmoded and obsolete. In such a manner, New Mexico may as well hold a “slave auction” and justify the auction implicitly (in the negative) as permitted .
The procedural processes of state necessary for the administration of equal justice cannot be geared as justice equally bad, and therefore equal justice, excused upon alitany of state case law. The threshold of equal justice incorporates simultaneously the Constitutional elements, and without selecting some but not others with a rationale that prejudice is fair as it is common.
At the time of the filing of the petition for mandamus before the state Supreme, the the ballots had not been printed. No true damage had been done by the judge’s order to remove from the ballots. We might even speculate that his decision was premised in that
the question required clarification.
What was expected was the grounding of Constitutional integrity. The state constitution provides “for no other qualification” other than what it states clearly. What was expected was the limitations that the State and United States Constitutionsrequired being applied—or if not , presenting with precision and reason the rationale of why not.
The state Supreme Court had plenty of time to restore the ‘equal protection’; and it choose not to.
And on the other hand, the “decision’ to not hear continues a propriety that fraud or a ‘prosecution by ambush’ are not the subject of nomination challenge. The counsel for the Governor even provides us with a clear evidence of this: “the “Sena complaint”. We
can clearly see that the complaint of “a voter’ is filed by his attorney—though the complaint is signed by a third party, his partner or associate.
Aside for the moment the question how that “court rule’ allows for the override of the individual signatory—who under equity law who be liable for a specious and costly litigation---as it is part of the voting process , it simply defies the individual citizen process in favor of a mechanism allows one to sign and express for another. Not only does it transgress the fundamental—one person one vote—and that is done individually by the citizens, it violates as a conspiracy several state and federal statutes.
Relative to the election law and Campaign Finance statutes, the filing is an unlawful interference and expenditure. As a Court document, it crosses the line of contempt of unacceptable practices to the same degree that no party, candidate or organization “sponsor “ paid thugs, agents or goons to block the entrances to the school yards, or muddle the roadways to the polling places. All just outside the view of election authorities. Paid agents intimidating others or discouraging selected precincts so to influence a final outcome or course of an election violates by conspiracy the election franchise. Elections are to be free and proper in every phase of the ballot process. They cannot weighted, even to an iota, and be equal. The State laws against “election abuse” must be strictly enforced. Anything less, including the neglect to act by the State produces a less bonafide election result or loss of public integrity in the democratic processes.. The result of such unlawful tactics and interferences certainly should not lead to a “just reward for criminal enterprise”. Nor should it be unjustly introduced as a measure of finality by the counsel for the Governor. Clearly, the mechanism and manner of the process of the application runs counter the Campaign Practices Act of New Mexico. Article 1-19-16 provides: A. It is unlawful for any person, organization or political campaign advertising or Communication which does not specify the name of the sponsor or the name of theResponsible officer who authorized the printing or publication of such material , in any election, special election, school district election or an election authorizing a bond hearing. This prohibition extends only to handbills, petitions, circulars or similar written material. C. Any person ,organization, or political committee violating the provisions of Sub-section A or B of Section1- 19-16 NMSA 1978 is guilty of a fourth degree felony and shall be punished as provided by the Criminal Code [30-1-1 NMSA 1978] Article 19.26.1 reads: A. It is unlawful for any political committee that receives, contributes or expends in excess of five hundred dollars ($500) in any calendar year to continue to receive or makeany contribution unless that political committee appoints and maintains a treasurer of a campaign committee and registers with the Secretary of State. B. A political committee shall register with the secretary of state within 10 days of receiving, contributing or expending in excess of five hundred dollars ( $500) by paying a filing fee of fifty ($50.00) and filing a statement of organization under oath on the prescribed form showing: (1) The full name of the political committee, which shall fairly and accurately reflect the identity of the committee, including any sponsoring organization, and its address; (2) a statement of the purpose for which the political organization was organized; (3) the name address and relationship of any connected or associated organization; (4) the names and addresses of the officers of the committee (5) the identification of the bank used by the committee for all expenditures made or received. 1-19-26 provides (F) “contribution’ means a gift, subscription, loan , advance, deposit of money or other thing of value, including the estimated value of an in-kind, that is made or received for a political purpose, including the payment of debt incurred in an election campaign, but does not include the value of services without compensation or reimbursed travel or other personal expenses of individuals who volunteer a portion or all of their time on behalf of a candidate or political committee, nor does it include the administrative or solicitation expenses of a political committee that are paid by an organization that sponsors the committee. Related to this Section of the Disclosures , there was an absolute and determinable cost to the filing of the complaint of Sena. It is within the record itself. The cost for filing the complaint “Complaint Challenging Candidacy for District Attorney for the First Judicial District” required a filing fee of $122. Service by the Sheriff‘s Department adds $25. Hiring an attorney is be a thing of debt. Assuming a reputable firm‘s charges (as it clearly names itself in a non individual capacity) with a four hour minimum, the expenses are bound to exceed the $500 limitation. 1-19-31 prohibits an outright unpaid campaign debt and that it is unlawful to not report the identity of the person to whom the debt is owed. 1-19-32 provides for an inspection of records. 1-19-34.4 provides: It is unlawful for a person [individual or entity] or political committee (which can be one person) to make, or a candidate or his agent to accept, a contribution that is reported as coming from one person or entity, when the candidate or his agent knows that the contribution is actually from another person or entity when the candidate or his agent is actually from another person or entity. 1-19-34. 3 (G) provides for criminal penalties. 1-19-34.6 provides for civil penalties.Authority is granted the secretary of state such measures as necessary to regulate or adopt rules to comply with the provisions of the Act. . The Criminal statutes of the State of New Mexico also provide statutes prohibitingthe use of a forged, fictitious , altered or altered license and the concealing of identityfor the purpose of deceiving or depriving another .( See 30-22-3 and 66-5-18 ) Certainly the assured right of voting cannot be measured with an absolute value. It, like assurances from libel or slander upon honor and distinction cannot be strictly measured with the value of a property right. They are intangibles. But just the same, the use with intent to deprive is criminal. It should have been fully enforced The Election Code offers several Offenses and penalties . Article 1-20-15 provides: Conspiracy to violate the Election Code [1-1-1 NMSA 1978 consists of knowingly combining, uniting or agreeing with any other person to omit any duty or commit any act, the omission of which duty , or combination of such act, would by the provisions of the Election Code constitute a fourth degree felony. Whoever commits conspiracy to violate the Election Code is guilty of a fourth degree Felony. Article 1-20-10 False swearing consists of taking any oath required by the Election Code with the knowledge that the thing or matter sworn is not true and correct statement. Whoever falsely swears is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Article 1-20-13 Coercion of Employees consists of any officer or agent of any corporation, company or association, or any person having under his direct control or in his employment entitled to vote in any election, directly or indirectly discharging or threatening to discharge such employee because of the employee’s political opinions or belief or because of such employee’s intention to vote or refrain from voting for any candidate, party, proposition, question or constitutional amendment. Whoever commits coercion of employees is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Article 1-20-14 Intimidation consists of inducing or attempting to induce fear in any member of a precinct board, voter, challenger or watcher by use of force, violence, infliction of damage, harm or loss or any form of economic retaliation, upon any voter, precinct board member, challenger or watcher for the purpose of impeding or preventing the free exercise of the elective franchise or the impartial administration of the election code. [1-1-1 NMSA 1978) Whoever commits intimidation is guilty of a fourth degree felony. And yet we have in New Mexico, and under the watchful eye of the Governor and the Election authorities a negligence to toward the enforcements. Prohibiting corporations from contributing to the ‘defeat’ of a candidate or proposition are ignored as are otherviolations. Illegal contributions are not reversed. Enforcements remain political.
And to top it off, the Counsel introduces the Challenge against Campbell , the case in which it is obvious conclusion that Campbell manufactured signatures for the purpose of inclusion with his nomination papers. .
The only point of finality with the complaint is that the signatures are as fraudulent today as they were the day Campbell submitted them . Absent from Counsel’s exhibit of the case is a ‘jury demand”-which could have acted as an election board in reviewing the signatures. A demand paid for and refused by the District Court And absent from the record is the motion for an expert witness from the State police. And absent from his exhibits was motion denied by the district Court was tantamount to a showing that the Court was more interested in disposing the case to its liking than to providing trial upon the validity of the signatures. Absent from the exhibits of the Counsel is that the Petitioners “Citizen Committee’ were denied seating at the bench.
The challenge against Campbell was on fraud. It was not simply the technical at the top of the nomination petition his middle initial was missing. Included in the complaint was a line by line, page by page listing of objection and for which a reasonable jury ( electionboard) would find as “fraud and violating not only Rules of Professional conduct but perjury and false swearing laws.
All of which is under a concurrent jurisdiction—including the Governor and his office in the supervision of the elections. It is after all, his proclamation and
administration.
And what we see is negligences and preferences where equality is assured. What we see is a repeated arbitrary application of law or statutes not full in the context.negligences which contribute to the further deprivation.
It is unacceptable to accept that an application which is vague allegation of interpretative belief to veto, or to pursue the ejectment of candidate. And without fulldisclosure, what is referred to “as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The cloth of democracy cannot so tailored.
It is unlawful to conspire deprive the candidate and hissupporters from viable political participation.. New Mexico’s state law on bars such unless it is formed as a political action committee, and filed with proper
reporting requirements. But does the Governor or the processes want to investigate such. They have shown nothing but stonewall to date. Unlawful conspiracies which appear in the court are not much different than unlawful supporters of one candidate intimidating voters just beyond the entrance to polling places. It cannot be.
For as much Petitioners object to the Motion of Governor Bill Richardson.
