GEORGE W. BUSH / DICK CHENEY, REPUBLICAN, 286,417- 48%
HARRY BROWNE / ART OLIVIER, LIBERTARIAN, 2,058- 0%
HOWARD PHILLIPS/ J. CURTIS FRAZIER, CONSTITUTION, 343- 0%
JOHN HAGELIN/ NAT GOLDHABER, NATURAL LAW, 361- 0%
PAT BUCHANAN / EZOLA FOSTER, REFORM, 1,392- 0%
Through November, 2000, the Green Party of New Mexico was treated as a major party and again featured a national candidate, Ralph Nader. The percentage garnered did not meet statutory threshold requirements for votes of the total determined to be required to remain “a major party.” In March of 2001, the Secretary of State notified the Green Party of New Mexico that they “were a minor political party,” despite one of the 2000 Court judges polling 9% and its Public Regulation candidate garnering 6%.
In 2002, The Green party of New Mexico again featured a candidate for Governor who did not garner 5%. Subsequently the Green party has not fielded a candidate for Governor, but occasionally fielded a candidate in unsuccessful general elections.
But to gain ballot access they needed to fulfill “requalification” under the statutes. This in light of the fact that at all times the number of persons who had maintained their registration as Green Party voters exceeded three times the number of persons required to “requalify” (2,750), and that the candidates faced a situation which included additional procedures not required of a major party and their candidate.
March, 2001, also saw the Secretary of State issue instructions to the County clerks to remove the Libertarian and Reform parties as they had been disqualified from “minor party” listing. The letter provided: “as required by law, you must remove the party rules and regulations from your files and notify all voters registered as members of that party of the disqualification."
By axiom, the demotion and disqualification of the parties removed, reduced or diluted the ability to field candidates and to present their platforms. Implicitly, the removal letters promised litigation which has since been brought before several Courts. Similar State authored proceedings were initiated upon other minor political parties.
On the date of the proclamation of the Governor in 2008, despite its obscure status, the number of registered voters affiliated as “Green” exceeded 8,300 persons, that is three times the number for a party to “re-qualify” as a major party.
Such classification as a separate facilitation of candidates, with unique party requirements in addition to individual nomination requirements, dilutes the voice of those who freely have chosen ‘the green alternatives.” Moreover, as the litigation has been preserved at State expense and with the directed purpose of disestablishing the parties, it is a denial of consequence.
When applied to State and district offices, such as the Judiciary and Legislature, the working order of the election administration effectively removed the apparatus of alternative access to the public ballots. With the additional requirements of requalification of parties, candidates desiring access as the “Natural Law Party,” “Libertarian Party,” “Green Party,” and “Reform Party” would be required to wait through the next election cycle under the New Mexico scheme which in effect “freezes“ party affiliations.
The results of the last three election cycles demonstrate the consequential effect of removing parties from access to the ballots. The state legislative branch is composed of two houses: Senate and House. The senators are elected every four years. House members are elected every two years. The senate is composed of 42 members; the house has 70 members.
In 2004, for 60% of the House district races, Democrats and Republicans had no opposition-- either in a primary or general campaign. In 2002, 54% had no opposition candidate-- none in party primaries nor from any general election opponent (Green Party, Libertarian or Independent.) In 2006, our last election cycle, 55.7% were without opposition.
The current situation creates a political elite, a ruling aristocracy rather than a properly elected citizen body. Again, one of the onerous statutes which prevent opposition from arising after the date of the Governor’s proclamation in January is the bar to “party switching.” A dissatisfied constituent group cannot recompose itself after the January date for the general election in November. Effectively, a person must be registered with that party in January of the current year—or, in the case of an Independent campaign arising after the Governor’s proclamation, the person must be a registered Independent prior to its signing, to be eligible. The sheer number of “uncontested“ races is the consequence.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
