Contact
Supreme Court takes up petition snafu
The N.M. Supreme Court building in Santa Fe
Secretary of state needs to know who will be on the ballot by April 11 so clerks can get ballots to New Mexicans who are overseas.
The New Mexico Supreme Court will consider on Tuesday whether candidates who left district and division numbers off their nominating petitions will remain on the ballot.
From the Albuquerque Journal:
“Secretary of State Dianna Duran had asked the high court to consolidate ten lawsuits and hold a hearing quickly on the ballot challenges.
“She says her office must know by April 11 who will be on the June 5 primary election ballot. That’s because county clerks have to get ballots out soon to military personnel and other New Mexicans overseas who have requested them.”
As NMPolitics.net has reported, at least 12 candidates who filed to run in the June 5 primary, including several sitting state legislators, failed to comply with a new law that requires that district or division numbers be listed on their nominating petitions.
Among them is Mark D’Antonio, the Democrat challenging Third Judicial District Attorney Amy Orlando, a Republican. D’Antonio released this statement about the situation after Orlando filed a challenge to his candidacy in court:
“I’m disappointed that Amy Orlando, who has been serving as Doña Ana County’s district attorney not by the will of the people but by appointment, is now trying to have this election decided in the courts instead of the voting booth on Election Day. It is apparent, in her legal suit filed against me March 30, 2011, that she expressly desires to retain her appointed position by running unopposed. In other words, Ms. Orlando does not want to face me or any other candidate who may stand in her way of being elected.
“While I acknowledge my oversight in not including the words ‘3rd Judicial District’ on my petitions, there was never any intent to confuse voters who signed my nominating petitions because the 3rd Judicial District comprises all of Doña Ana County – and therefore should be no confusion as to the district in which I am running.”
Orlando responded with this:
“The current spate of legal filings throughout the State against both Republican and Democrat candidates who have mistakes, omissions or fraudulent issues in their nominating petitions, should be of serious concern to all. Mr. D’Antonio admits he did not follow the law. As district attorney, I cannot and will not pick and choose which laws I will follow. Therefore, I filed a legal challenge.”
You can read more about Orlando’s challenge to D’Antonio’s candidacy from the Las Cruces Sun-News.
18 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As, it has been argued, that tax expenditure reports should not be used in legislating budget policy, (except for the film tax incentive, of course), because they would only confuse people and lead to “unnecessary” debate and “politicization” of vital public policy issues too complicated for most people to understand. Yeah, right…
On the side bar discussion, the main problem with the US Congressional Record, is that the members of both Houses can, and do “correct” that record before it becomes official. That means they can add and delete most anything they care to. Speeches they never made, gaffes and slurs, Etc., that never appear, in the printed version.
Sorry meant GREAT article calling out Amy O’s cheap politics called “Seeking a free pass in election”.
http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_20350026/seeking-free-pass-election
Sure is going to be embarrassing when Amy Orlando loses in court! Part of prosecuting is knowing when to pick your battles. If it’s proven she picked the wrong battle here then it probably shows she can’t pick the right battles when it comes down to prosecuting criminals.
Sun News obviously believes the same. Greout article calling out Amy O’s cheap politics called “Seeking a free pass in election”. http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_20350026/seeking-free-pass-election
Judge Sam Winder in Albuquerque won his case in court Friday. The judge in that case concluded that Winder could not be kept off the ballot even though he didn’t include the district number on his petitions.
Same thing happened in Las Cruces on Friday in the case between John Zimmerman and Rudolfo Martinez. Judge Arrieta dismissed the case and is letting Martinez on the ballot.
(Why didn’t the Sun News or anyone else report on this, by the way?)
Not good for Amy O.
For IP … uh huh.
The courts do try to read the law and follow the objective and purpose of the legislature in passing a law, but they do that through interpreting the plain words in the statute. It is different with federal law, in which the debate in committees and on the floor of Congress are preserved, and the federal courts can go back to try to figure out what the Congress was thinking and therefore what they really meant when they passed a law.
I, for one, am pretty happy that our courts only look at the printed words of the statutes in interpreting cases. Can you imagine if they really had to read the inane, insipid and often ridiculous comments of our legislators to try to figure out what they were thinking when the passed a certain law? Just trying to make sense of what our legislators say by itself would be enough to drive some judges crazy, and we would probably all be very shocked and disappointed if we knew what they were really thinking during the debates on some bills.
Agreed.
“…it would just confuse things and create a mess to have permanent recordings of what the Legislature intended.”
…which I think we can all agree is a truly novel excuse for trying to hide the people’s business from the people.
FYI, and he may be wrong, but House Majority Leader Ken Martinez has said repeatedly that New Mexico doesn’t recognize legislative intent. In fact, that’s his argument against archiving webcasting; since we don’t recognize legislative intent, he says, it would just confuse things and create a mess to have permanent recordings of what the Legislature intended.
“NM doesn’t recognize legislative intent…”
Incorrect, AstuteObserver; as Mr. Schneider pointed out three days ago – on a thread on which you had personally commented only a few hours before and in direct response to your incorrect belief repeated above – NMSA 1978 § 12-2A-18 does exactly that. Your observational skills are, as ever, not terribly astute.
Ashes – it IS Good Friday … but I’m hardly as wonderful as you seem to think I am. I signed many petitions this year – they seem pretty simple to fill out … why do we make excuses for our politicians and political wanna-be’s who can’t comprehend how to fill out a simple form? We have serious issues and we need serious people to help solve them. We have public offices that need to be filled by people with detail oriented skills and yet people (including our Secretary of State - who I often praise, but not in this case) defend candidates (on both sides of the isle) that don’t have a clue on how to dot an ‘i’ or cross a ‘t’. For a legislator – the words are important … NM doesn’t recognize legislative intent so the words in legislation are all we have after they’ve been blessed and signed … and a sloppy DA can destroy a good case without good paperwork and the public is less safe. I pray Dona Ana does not get a DA who can’t fill out a simple form. Remember – in politics, you don’t get what you want – you get what is available …
Sure is going to be embarrassing when she loses in court! Part of prosecuting is knowing when to pick your battles. If it’s proven she picked the wrong battle here then it probably shows she can’t pick the right battles when it comes down to prosecuting criminals.
Just read that Judge Sam Winder in Albuquerque won his case in court today. The judge in that case concluded that Winder could not be kept off the ballot even though he didn’t include the district number on his petitions.
Not good for you Amy O.
Astute Observer, my how holier than thou you are! When you pick up a copy of the Sun News and they write about the D.A.’s office, do they ever say “Amy Orlando, 3rd Judicial District Attorney?”. I think not. They always say “Dona Ana District Attorney”. Why? Perhaps because the terms are one and the same!
When you ask the average voter, what do you think they call the office? Only an insider would call it the “3rd Judicial District” which is a much more confusing term, don’t you think?. I could understand if there were multiple counties represented in this district.
I never heard of D’Antonio before yesterday but he’s already proving that he’s more “one of us” unlike Amy Orlando who seems like she can’t keep her head above water. She sure isn’t Susana Martinez!
Lets see … DA candidates (who are lawyers), incumbent senate and house candidates, wanna-be senators and members of the house, a judge candidate or two … can’t manage to read the law and comply with the law by which elections are run … and people still argue they are serious public servants? Details of the law are important! From not listing what they are running for to getting fraudulent or illegal signatures … there is a Darwinian process here for who should be onthe ballot and who shouldn’t. In the case of this article – a DA candidate doesn’t pay attention to the details but thinks he is a good candidate for Dona Ana DA (merits and demerits of Amy Orlando aside) and should be allowed the honor of prosecuting cases for the people – this is a Darwin winning story. He has embarassed himself off the ballot …
Oh and Gary King, since you have instructed the Secretary of States office otherwise, if you are reading this please do listen to this news report particularly the last three sentences.
http://newmexico.onpolitix.com/news/114223/sup-court-to-hear-election-challenges
Is there a DA in the house? How about a US Attorney on this one?
I wish the Supreme Court would take up the Gary King snafu in regard to the investigation of criminal activity brought forth by whistleblowers against former Secretary of State Mary Herrera.
Is there a DA in the house?
As district attorney, I cannot and will not pick and choose which laws I will follow.
– Amy Orlando
Oh but she sure can decide what cases and issues to investigate. People around here are figuring out that she isn’t doing her job. She and some of her favorite members of her staff sure are seen in Santa Fe a lot instead of investigating crime here in Doña Ana County. It is high time that we get a D.A. around here who wants to do the job instead of fool around. She’s a little late to the party on Sunland Park. Hello Amy, where have you been the past two years?
I look forward to seeing what the New Mexico Supreme Court decides on these fraudulent acts. And I look forward to seeing if criminal charges will follow.
I think the following scenerio happens in New Mexico and I wonder what the New Mexican District Attorneys, County Clerks, Attorney General, and the New Mexico Supreme Court Judges would think or do about it:
“Actual voter fraud of the kind decried in Republican propaganda is rare, according to nonpartisan experts. Although the White House recently rewrote a careful federal study by the Election Assistance Commission to hide that basic fact, very few individuals intentionally fabricate a registration or cast an illegal ballot. There are exceptions, of course — most notably illustrated by Republican celebrity Ann Coulter.
When the far-right columnist and television personality registered to vote in Palm Beach, Fla., in 2005, she wrote down the address of her realtor’s office rather than her own home address. She then signed the form, despite its plain warning that falsifying any information on it would make her liable to felony prosecution — and which she, as a lawyer, surely understood. According to Palm Beach County election officials, she also voted in the wrong precinct the following year, disregarding a poll worker who explained her error. (Coulter fans can view her dubious voter-registration form online at http://www.bradblog.com.)
If proved, those acts would be crimes punishable by prison terms of up to five years, but Coulter has stonewalled the ongoing investigation. (She says the Palm Beach officials are syphilitic and mentally defective.) No charges have been filed so far, perhaps because her lawyer is a prominent Republican who worked on Bush v. Gore in 2000 — and whom the president then appointed as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. He must know a lot about election fraud.” -from http://www.creators.com