Seeking a free pass in election

Seeking a free pass in election

April 8, 2012
Elections are like an all-you-can-eat buffet — the more choices, the better.

Unfortunately, the fallout from a bill passed unanimously last year by the state Legislature is threatening to limit the choices available to voters this June in the primary election and November in the general election; as well as end the careers of numerous legislative leaders.

SB 403, titled "Election Code Language Standardization," seemed simple enough when passed. According to the fiscal impact report prepared for the bill, it "updates the Election Code by clarifying definitions, fixing conflicts, updating procedures and conforms the Code to actual practice. SB 403 bill does not put forth any major new policies."

One year later, that innocuous-sounding bill that allegedly implemented no new policy has led to a series of lawsuits seeking to disqualify dozens of candidates.

The Supreme Court will try to bring some clarity to the situation Tuesday when it hears the cases of 10 lawsuits that have been filed throughout the state. The court's decision will impact not just those 10 cases, but numerous others involving the same issue.

At the heart of those cases are new requirements mandating increased specificity in the nominating petitions submitted by candidates.

For example, local District Attorney Amy Orlando has sought to have challenger Mark D'Antonio disqualified because he listed the office he was seeking as Doña Ana County district attorney and not district attorney for the Third Judicial District.

That may seem like a distinction without a difference, given that the Third Judicial District covers Doña Ana County. But Orlando insists that she really has no choice but to seek a free pass to the position she was appointed to when Susana Martinez was elected governor two years ago.

"As district attorney, I can not and will not pick and choose which laws I will follow," she proclaimed.

Did the Legislature really intend for dozens of otherwise qualified candidates to be disqualified by this new law? That seems unlikely, given that many of those who voted for the bill last year are now facing the prospect of being dropped from the ballot and removed from office without voters being able to decide.

A letter from Secretary of State Dianna Duran to the Attorney General's Office seeking clarification lists 12 candidates who could be impacted: Sens. Pete Campos, Sue Wilson Beffort and Tim Jennings; Reps. Rick Little, Dianne Hamilton, James Roger Madalena and Rudolpho Martinez; Commissioner Vince Bergman; and candidates Joshua Madalena, Louis Luna, Guadalupe Cano and Karen Montoya.

More names have been added since then, including former Legislative Finance Committee Chairman Lucky Varela.

District Judge Henry Quintero in Silver City heard the case challenging Hamilton and Cano last week, and is expected to rule Monday, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing.

In that case, challenger Terry Fortenberry alleges that not only were there errors in how the ballots were filled out, but also signatures from voters who either did not live in the district or were not registered for the political party in which they signed the petition. There's a big difference between invalid signatures and a technical mistake like listing the county instead of the district.

In sports, officials often decide whether to call a foul based on if a team or player gained an unfair advantage. The court would be wise to apply that same standard here.

Every candidate who has challenged the petitions of his or her opponent has issued a statement insisting that they were merely seeking to ensure that the letter of the law was upheld. But voters recognize opportunism when they see it, and will not appreciate efforts to restrict their choices at the ballot.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.