Diary: TURN ON THE GREENS

Turn On the Green Party

The New Mexico election code seems nuetral as one reads it. An
election code is to assure the nation one of the most cherished of rights-
the right of the people to representation in the federal
government. That is what the founding fathers of the nation brought
forth-- a concept of government which fluid and popular. Fluid in that the
actors--those who hold the offices of the government are enabled to react
to the events of the day. Popular in that the diversity of people would
not be controlled by any single entity. There were checks and balances;
and measures that promoted the rights of minority groups-- such as new
communities.
   Still the centers of power always acted at the discretion of the
officeholders. They were to act within the bounds of the
Constitution--and faithfully serve its articles. Sometimes powers is
abused.That is the fallacy of man. Sometimes abused powers are checked.
The system is plural-- offices are whether legislative, executive or
judicial are independent. people can respond to and act.Not in a
demonstration of uprising such as riots or rebellion. but demonstrations
of the will at a ballot -- and then by letter to a nuetral administer who
mission is the proper affirming of the will.
   The plight of the Green Party of New Mexico displays a targeted
abuse. According to Rick Lass, the former State Chairman of GPNM, The
Green Party is founded in 1994. Governor candidate Roberto Mondragon
leaves the Democrats after losing the primary to Bruce King. "- a
candidate search had been ongoing by a group of folks who realized the
Democratic Party was not the vehicle for progressive politics, so this
was a real victory- a former Lt Gov who had 'seen the light'. We had a
slate that included Gov/Lt Gov, Land Commish, Treasurer, and some lower
positions. By getting 11% (over 5%), we became the first new Major Party
in NM history. In 96, we ran Nader and a handful of other
candidates, retaining major party status on the strength of a
Corporation Commission candidate. In 98, we ran no governor candidate
(on Purpose), but almost every other executive level race, and again
retained major party status. While most remember 2000 as the election that
gave Bush the Presidency, NM Greens rue the actions of Vigil Giron and
Madrid. V-G actually campaigned in '98 on a platform of 'desroying the
Greens', promising the assembled delegates at the preprimary to do just
that. Without any cause, or any written record that we know of, these two
reversed the published opinion of previous AG ( Tom Udall). In 2000, Nader
did not get 5%. So, in spite of Court of Appeals candidate Gladstone
getting 11%, we were relegated to minor party.
   Minor party status means "that no candidate shall be permitted to
have the names of its candidates." It differs from "major party" status in
that every candidate who files and survives a primary will have his or her
name printed on ballots of the general election. By axiom, there is not
equality on the ballots.
   And that's a problem. That is a problem not because of the political
antics. We as a public have come to expect that. It is a problem
because the statutes enforced by the state officials usurped the
constitutional integrity of elections in the state. While the state is to
administer the elections, it does so for orderly conduct-- and it must do
so without disenfranchising .It doesn't have to be a perfect election, but
it must have symmetry--
    And there is no symmetry or perfection in the process used to remove
the Green Party from ballot access. The 8323 persons registered "green"
designated their party choice freely and voluntarily. Their right to full
extension of voting is in equality with other parties. It cannot be
demoted or segregated or relegated with the introduction of a sliding
scale and a "switch and bait" of statutory requirements. Yet this is what
happened.
    8232 people went and cast votes. They weren't terrorists or
committing crimes. They simply cast votes as they so chose in a
secret ballot. They didn't legislative winners. They didn't elect
any Federal officials or state. They were out voted in every case. But
they voted. And without disaffirming their free choice of party
affiliation. And for voting freely, and discernably, they were
imposed a rule that was of such standard which far exceeded the
established 1/2 of 1% of the general election vote. In the 2008 elections
that would be 2863, less than half of the number of those that continue to
vote and hold their party preference.
    Rather they are legally told, but never personally told that the
results were not good enough for equality at the most crucial of
phases of the ballot process. Now Federal law requires equality in each of
the phases of elections. Exercises which disenfranchise are no more
acceptable than the bus company stating some have to ride in the back of
the (election)bus. The choice is to remain with each individual citizen.
And it must be a free choice. Not the back of the bus or off the bus.
    Because the ballot access for Federal offices is constitutional, the
actors of the State cannot exercise a statute which usurps the
Constitution. Laws which are enacted counter that are "bugs bunny law" or
"guise laws". Conditioning access to the ballot process upon
mechanisms which are illusionary beyond the ministerial authority of the
State. Excepting that a political party is acting fraudualently, falls
below the threshold of discernable minority of the population, or simply
ceases to exist, there is no legitimate interest of the State to not permit
the names of the parties' candidates. What we have here is 'legal cause of
action' ( the statute requiring a higher threshold of percent of the
general vote ) which was unchallanged as how it fulfills the legitimate
interests of the state.
    And there is a measurable difference between ballot placement and it
absence.They seemingly now lose their right to place candidates upon the
ballots without redundancy, and circular denials. 8323 persons currently
registered are barred from designating their Presidential electors-- and
'having them "printed on the ballots" in an election which the elections
and representation is to be held. Procedures for the selection of national
parties fielding Presidential candidates do not even become effective
until January 0f 2008. That too is Constitutional. Along the selection of
Senatorial, Congressional and state patry offices.Without due process,
legimate purpose of the state and a measurable disparaty, the
disenfranchisement persists, and ability to be fairly reprsented is
reduced an iota more day.
    The call should not be on a "redundant petition drive" . 2863 is not
an overwhelming number of the voter population. But it is redundant
circular work diverting the proper planning and adminsitration of a
future.
We need to redeem the the past inequities before October when guidelines
of the Elections 2008 are officially issued. The secretary of state should
either hold hearings on the green question or issue a letter of status
maintaining the Greens shall be included. We are after all an inclusive
society in New Mexico.