Heath Haussamen

What to make of all the polls released today? As far as I’m concerned, this race could be roughly tied at a third apiece on June 5.

Until today, the public hadn’t seen a single poll of the three-way 1st Congressional District Democratic primary race between Marty Chávez, Michelle Lujan Grisham and Eric Griego.

Then the floodgates opened.

Grisham released a poll this morning that had her and Griego tied at 35 percent apiece and Chávez trailing at 23 percent. Grisham’s polling memo said that was an 11-point gain for her since February, while Griego gained eight points and Chavez lost 14.

A news release from the Grisham campaign proclaimed this a two-way race between her and Griego.

The other campaigns were quick to respond. Griego put out his own polling memo that had him leading with 35 percent to Grisham’s 30 percent and Chavez’s 28 percent. The memo said Griego gained five points since late February, while Grisham gained six and Chávez lost nine.

And though it didn’t release a polling memo, the Chávez campaign said it had tracking numbers that had the race virtually tied – 26 percent for Chávez, 25 percent for Grisham, 24 percent for Griego and 25 percent undecided.

Unpacking the polls

What to make of all of this? Let’s unpack things a little more.

Grisham’s poll surveyed 402 likely Democratic primary voters between Thursday and Sunday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. Only 7 percent of those surveyed were undecided.

Griego’s poll surveyed 400 likely Democratic primary voters on Tuesday and Wednesday and has the same margin of error as Lujan-Grisham’s – and the same percentage of voters who were undecided.

Chávez’s tracking numbers didn’t come with a margin of error, but his campaign said it was an automated survey of 1,929 Democrats conducted this weekend.

As always, the difference may come down to methodology. There’s actually not a lot of difference between the Grisham and Griego polls. Chávez might be using different methodology.

On one hand, his tracking numbers might be suspect because they didn’t come with a formal memo that listed a margin of error. On the other hand, I was surprised by the low number of undecideds in the other two polls.

Grisham spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said it’s not surprising: The Grisham and Griego polls have lower undecided numbers because they used live interviewers who push people to answer questions, while Chávez used an automated system that makes it easier to not make a choice.

“There have been weeks of coverage, ads and mail. The election is in two weeks. It doesn’t surprise me that there are few undecideds,” he said.

Difficult to predict

Gallegos may be right. So maybe the race is closer to what’s indicated by the Grisham and Griego polls.

But there’s a more intuitive way to look at this race that I think is important in a situation in which three different polls paint three different pictures of where the race stands.

Chávez is by far the most well-known of the three. He started out this race with much higher name ID. It makes sense that he would have led early in the polls.

But the former Albuquerque mayor was also booted from office in 2009. The longer you’re in office, the more people there are out there who don’t like you. Chávez has a ceiling. I’m not sure where it is, but it’s there.

In addition, Grisham and Griego have outraised Chávez. They’ve been on TV with big ad buys, and he has not.

I’m assuming that’s because he’s been saving his limited money for one big ad buy at the end. So, while the others have spent the last few weeks gaining ground and maybe even pulling ahead of Chávez, he might spend the rest of the race experiencing a little surge of his own.

Perhaps the other two have the funds to keep pace with Chávez on TV and stop him from gaining much ground. Perhaps not.

And perhaps he’s already reached his ceiling. At this point, I’d rather be Grisham or Griego than Chávez.

But Chávez’s base is probably among the most reliable voters – those who are sure to turn out on Election Day. I wouldn’t count him out.

As far as I’m concerned, this race could be roughly tied at a third apiece on June 5. It probably won’t turn out that way, but that’s how difficult I believe it is to predict.

In other words, it’s going to be a wild couple of weeks.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Until reform gives third-party candidates a realistic chance to become viable, perhaps spoilers are our best hope of keeping the two-party system in check.

After securing the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president this weekend, former N.M. Gov. Gary Johnson insisted that he could win the race if the media lets him into nationally televised debates.

“If that happens, I want to suggest to you that anything can happen,” the Albuquerque Journal quoted Johnson as saying. “I’m honored to have the nomination, and I wouldn’t be doing it if I didn’t think I could win…”

I’ve already written that, as the Libertarian candidate, Johnson could impact the race. But I also wrote about a potential path to victory for him when he was a Republican candidate that ended up not coming to fruition:

 “Johnson is someone who shares the tea party’s ideology but has actually had to balance that ideology with governing in a practical way. His candidacy may present a moment for the tea party to decide its future.

“…I have my doubts about whether the tea party movement is prepared to follow someone like Johnson. And even if the movement is ready, Johnson’s positions on social issues will make the road ahead difficult for him.

“Perhaps it’s likely that Johnson’s presidential campaign will go nowhere. But I think there’s also a chance, if the tea party gathers around him, that he will become a significant candidate – and the tea party will become a lasting force.”

Well, Johnson didn’t become a significant candidate in the GOP race, thanks in part to the machine that protects the warring two-party system – a machine that included the national media and, in this instance, the Republican Party.

Johnson is too liberal on social issues for the most active GOP primary voters, so the powers-that-be decided early on that he wasn’t to be taken seriously. His GOP campaign was doomed.

‘Everybody says they want a viable alternative’

Johnson is running the best campaign he can now. A record-high 40 percent of Americans identified as independents in 2011 and are fed up with the two-party system. Johnson’s campaign website opens with this phrase:

“Everybody says they want a viable alternative to America’s two-party chokehold. Everybody – meet Gary Johnson. The two-party is over.”

Maybe there is, someday, a chance of that happening, if most people outside the two-party system rally around one candidate. But the Americans Elect movement doesn’t list Johnson as a declared candidate for its nomination that will place a yet-to-be-named candidate on the ballot in many states.

While Johnson is likely to be on the ballot in all 50 states, he may not be the automatic alternative to the two major parties.

Here’s a dose of reality from Reuters:

“The Libertarians’ best presidential showing came in 1980 when nominee Ed Clark won 921,128 votes or 1.1 percent. In the 2008 election, party nominee Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman, got 523,686 votes or 0.4 percent.”

‘The distinct and alarming traits of a spoiler’

Now, I think Johnson can and very well may do better than any Libertarian in history. Here’s what I wrote about him earlier this year in my Tea Party column:

“Johnson is intelligent and articulate; he’s athletic and hip (he climbed Mount Everest with a broken leg); he will be viewed as honest (he’s very open about his past drug use). He has potential in most categories that lead to likeability. That’s far different than the situation with Ron Paul and his son.

“Johnson has a very simple message for America: We’re bankrupt, we’re on the verge of financial collapse, and we have to balance the budget, no matter what it takes. It’s a message that will resonate with many.

“And he has the experience to back up his message: He’s made difficult choices, cut government waste and vetoed hundreds of bills…”

The Daily Beast suggests Johnson could “shake up 2012:”

“In an era of infinite political dysfunction, Johnson is rolling the dice with a brand of fiscal responsibility and social tolerance that could make him a real threat in November.

“… Johnson has been polling between 6 and 9 percent nationally, a number just large enough to cover most Obama-Romney spreads. His name is expected to appear on ballots in all 50 states, and unlike the president and Mitt Romney, Johnson will spend the next six months speaking freely in language unmolested by establishment advisers or influential special interests. As the predictable election trench war digs in, the unassuming New Mexican is taking on the distinct and alarming traits of a spoiler.”

Spoiler it may be, particularly in New Mexico, where Johnson’s name recognition might win him a higher percentage of votes than other states. Polls haven’t yet shown that New Mexico is a swing state this year, and while I expect the presidential race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney to tighten, Romney isn’t the type of conservative who blue-leaning New Mexicans generally rally behind.

Johnson is… or at least used to be.

I’m not saying Johnson can or will win New Mexico. But he’ll be on the ballot and make it more difficult for Romney to compete here.

Johnson has some liberal appeal, but he ensured that he will win more conservative support than liberal backing when he accepted the Libertarian nomination.

Forcing Republicans to rethink who they nominate

I don’t think third-party hopefuls shouldn’t run simply because they might spoil the chances of a mainstream candidate who leans their way. We’re never going to fix our political system if we don’t fight against the machine that unfairly keeps the two parties in power without forcing them to earn that right.

Johnson has almost zero chance of winning the race. The best he can do is keep Romney from winning. And that might force Republicans to rethink who they nominate for president, just as Ralph Nader has done for Democrats in recent elections and Ross Perot did for both parties in the 1990s.

Until reform gives third-party candidates a realistic chance to become viable, perhaps spoilers are our best hope of keeping the two-party system in check.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Bernalillo County Commissioner Michael Wiener loaned his smiling face to the sex tourism industry – and possibly sex slavery – in a less-developed nation, and says that’s no different than posing with women at Hooters here. How very American.

Bernalillo County Commissioner Michael Wiener thinks there’s no difference between posing for a photo with women who work at Hooters and those in the Philippines who may very well be sex slaves.

Yes, really. Here’s the written statement the Republican provided to the Huffington Post:

“NOTHING untoward ever happened. NOTHING. The pictures taken are as innocent as any that could be taken at Twin Peaks or Hooters here.”

Forget for a minute the possibilities about what might have happened that Wiener isn’t telling us. Let’s take his story at face value.

Wiener says he was in the Philippines to visit his 12-year-old daughter. He says he had a layover in Angeles City, at night, and took a cab into town. He says he was traveling with his girlfriend.

In a city of more than 300,000 people, he went to the red-light district. He didn’t say whether he knew the area was a red-light district. Here’s what he was quoted by the Albuquerque Journal as saying:

“I just wanted to take a quick tour. It’d be like if people go to Las Vegas and they want to go to the casinos, but they don’t gamble. I was just curious. I walked from one end to the other.”

Of a red-light district.

A man who has a 12-year-old daughter living in the Philippines, a country in which human trafficking and child prostitution are serious problems, says he was approached by an American who wanted to photograph him with scantily clad women, so he obliged.

In a red-light district, he posed for a photo with women who may very well be sex slaves.

At the very least, Wiener’s actions show a stunning level of ignorance of the plight of people around him. He loaned his smiling face to the sex tourism industry – and possibly sex slavery – in a less-developed nation by posing for a photo with the women.

How very American.

The photo was as innocent as any that could be taken with women who serve food, voluntarily, in America, for at least minimum wage and with other worker protections? I don’t think so. I’m no fan of restaurants like Hooters, and haven’t been in one in more than a decade because I don’t appreciate the way they objectify women, but it’s not the same.

Shouldn’t women who work at those American restaurants be offended by the comparison?

Sadly, Wiener doesn’t appear to understand the gravity of his actions. Does he know that these women might be sex slaves? Does he care?

Or are these women in the Philippines, and the women who work at Twin Peaks and Hooters, nothing but objects to Wiener? He’s given us no indication that anything else is the truth.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

I’ve already started assigning stories related to the primary election to a couple of freelance reporters. You’ll see them in the coming weeks.

Thanks to the donations of 150 of you, NMPolitics.net now has money to pay freelancers to write news articles.

That will take some pressure off me, which I needed to happen. More importantly, it means more diversity of voices in NMPolitics.net’s reporting than before.

Our fundraising drive ends today. We’ve raised $12,610 – 70 percent of our $18,000 goal. While we didn’t quite reach our goal, which would have allowed us to hire a reporter outright, we did raise enough funds for solid freelance reporting.

And we exceeded the amount we raised last year. We also increased the number of donors during this year’s fundraising drive.

This is great news for NMPolitics.net, because it shows us that our work is valued in New Mexico. Thank you again for your support!

I’ve already started assigning stories related to the primary election to a couple of freelance reporters. You’ll see them in the coming weeks.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your support for NMPolitics.net, whether it’s through making a donation, advertising, contributing a guest commentary, commenting on articles, participating in the discussion on Facebook and Twitter, or simply reading. Your support keeps this site going.

If any of you intended to make a donation but haven’t yet, you can donate any time at nmpolitics.net/contribute.

Onward!

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Jesus ‘Ruben’ Segura’s 12-year tenure as mayor does not represent the good old days in Sunland Park. It’s just another page in a scandal-plagued chapter in the city’s history that needs to come to an end.

Listening to former Sunland Park Mayor Jesus “Ruben” Segura speak recently, you’d think his tenure as leader of the scandal-plagued city represented better times.

It’s true that then-Gov. Bill Richardson and the state pumped a bunch of money into Sunland Park while Segura was mayor, but that doesn’t mean the city’s government was acting with integrity and transparency.

No, Segura operated in the dark and was a master of backroom deals; he contributed to the culture in which the scandal currently plaguing the city was born.

Segura opted against seeking re-election to the mayor’s office in 2008. Now, with the city in turmoil because of the recent criminal charges brought against the former mayor pro tem, city manager and nine others – and with Segura hoping Sunland Park will elect him to the state Senate seat being vacated by Cynthia Nava – he’s back.

He showed up a recent city council meeting, which ended up being delayed because the crowd was too big for the venue and got rowdy, and demanded that the council set up a microphone for those outside to hear what was going on. Not doing so, he correctly pointed out, would violate the Open Meetings Act, according to the Las Cruces Sun-News.  You can watch Segura shouting at the council courtesy of KFOX-TV in El Paso.

In a separate interview with KFOX, Segura said the city needs “a change in governance,” talked about the days when he was mayor, and said seeing what’s happening now “really hurts.”

He also said, in response to a question about possible state takeover of some city functions, that, “sometimes Sunland Park is a forgotten community, and sometimes I feel the state needs to get more involved.”

State could have, but didn’t, take over in 2003

Here’s what I wrote in February about the time the state could have, but didn’t, take control of the city away from Segura in 2003:

“Why shouldn’t Sunland Park operate this way? It’s done it before, been caught doing it, and somehow avoided consequences. In 2003, the State Auditor’s Office released a damning report that included findings of fiscal mismanagement surrounding a $2 million loan and violations of the state Open Meetings Act, procurement code, and nepotism laws. Then-State Auditor Domingo Martinez recommended that the Department of Finance and Administration suspend elected officials and take over the city.

“But an investigation that began before Bill Richardson took office instead went away quietly during Richardson’s first year as governor.

“You see, in Sunland Park they’re masters of political theater – as evidenced by strippergate and other recent incidents. A town full of Hispanic Democrats opposed Richardson’s involvement in its battle with Doña Ana County over water. Led by the mayor, residents burned Richardson campaign T-shirts in front of El Paso TV cameras.

“And – surprise! – the special audit went away, and Richardson and Sunland Park officials became friends again. Martinez was appalled, but also powerless.

“I’m oversimplifying the way it went down, but the reality is that Richardson had the evidence to justify stepping in and the authority to clean up this mess, but he chose not to do it.”

Details of the 2003 special audit

I recently got my hands on the 2003 audit report. You can read it here. Then-State Auditor Domingo Martinez’s office found that Segura and the city council:

• “Willfully violated State laws with regard to the Open Meetings Act; Inspection of Public Records Act; State Constitution anti-donation clause; State statutes regarding loans, nepotism and residency; Procurement Code; and Mileage and Per Diem Act.”
• “Willfully violated DFA fiscal regulations.”
• “Willfully failed to perform duties imposed by the laws that the secretary of the DFA is charged with enforcing.”

More detail:

• Minutes of meetings weren’t kept in many instances; when they were, they often weren’t approved in the timely manner required by law. Those were among dozens of Open Meetings Act violations the auditor identified.
• Purchase orders were issued after purchases were already made.
• The city wasn’t reporting income to the IRS.
• The city was in some instances overrunning budgets. In other instances, it was not even establishing a budget.

What was going on? Segura and a council that, for at least part of his tenure, was aligned against him, were fighting for control of the city. They broke laws in their efforts to wrestle control of certain issues from each other. Segura, for example, violated the Open Meetings Act to try to keep the council in the dark about what he was doing. And he violated state law by refusing to take action on council-approved items.

Segura, a master of politics, faced no consequences. Neither did city councilors.

Another page in a chapter that needs to end

I will say that Segura was a champion for his community as mayor. He was operating within a system in which political factions were accustomed to fighting over power for their own selfish reasons, and he negotiated a great deal of money from Richardson for infrastructure and other improvements in Sunland Park.

He also led Sunland Park into an agreement with Doña Ana County to end years of legal fighting and create a joint utility to help growth in the region.

I’m not saying residents of Senate District 31 shouldn’t vote for Segura. That’s up to you to decide. I’m simply responding to Segura’s recent remarks and actions by pointing out what really happened. A man who has complained about Open Meetings Act violations by the current city council used to intentionally violate that very act all the time.

What Sunland Park needed when Segura was mayor – and still needs – is an end to the days of backroom deals, nepotism and general lawlessness. Segura mastered that system and used it to bring some good things to Sunland Park, but he was still part of and perpetuated a system that led to the outrageous actions of the slate of city officials currently facing criminal charges.

Who knows what else happened on Segura’s watch?

No, Segura’s 12-year tenure does not represent the good old days in Sunland Park. It’s just another page in a chapter in the city’s history that needs to come to an end.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

NMPolitics.net’s annual fundraising drive ends a week from today. If you haven’t yet made a donation to help keep this site going, please, make one today!

You can donate at nmpolitics.net/contribute.

As of today, NMPolitics.net has raised $11,735, or 65 percent of its $18,000 goal. I realize we’re not likely to reach that goal, which was aimed at providing the resources to hire a reporter to help me cover New Mexico politics and government.

So NMPolitics.net probably isn’t going to be able to a reporter; however, I’m going to set aside some money for a freelance budget. What we raise in the next week will determine how much money I can pay freelancers to write news articles over the course of the next year.

You can give a one-time contribution in any amount, or you can sign up to have your credit or debit card automatically charged $10 or $20 each month with the ability to cancel at any time.

Heath Haussamen

Those who sign up for automatic contributions will receive a monthly newsletter containing exclusive analysis and interesting tidbits about what’s happening in New Mexico and news about NMPolitics.net.

Those who give a one-time contribution of at least $120 will also receive the monthly newsletter for a year.

Your contribution will be publicly listed along with others on NMPolitics.net, and it’s not tax-deductible. Click here to read NMPolitics.net’s entire financial contributor policy.

Thanks to those of you who have given! I hope the rest of you will make donations today at nmpolitics.net/contribute. Any amount helps!

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

By all appearances, the Sunland Park City Council tried to comply with the Open Meetings Act in appointing a new mayor, but it still failed. The city’s leaders don’t seem to know how to let sunshine in. They need help.

The N.M. Open Meetings Act requires that anyone who wants to be let into a public meeting of a government body be allowed in. Here’s the provision in the law:

“… all persons desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings.”

By all appearances, the Sunland Park City Council tried to make that happen during its search for a new mayor. Councilors postponed one meeting after it got rowdy because there were too many people to fit in the room. They found a bigger venue.

But their attempt to involve the public still failed.

Police blocked the entrance to the larger room at least 30 minutes before the meeting started because the room was full. Many Sunland Park residents and others weren’t allowed to attend the meeting. Among those kept out were at least two residents who wanted to ask the council to consider appointing them mayor.

Absent those choices, the city council appointed 24-year-old Javier Perea, who showed up at the meeting with his résumé in hand and walked away with the task of leading the most scandal-plagued city in the state into a new era of ethics and transparency.

Here’s what Gwyneth Doland, executive director of the N.M. Foundation for Open Government, said about the situation:

“Why on earth would you do something so important as choose the next mayor when the room isn’t big enough to hold all the people applying for the job? The Open Meetings Act REQUIRES you to let in everyone who wants to be there. I don’t know if this is malevolence or incompetence, but I know I don’t much like the choices.

“If I were one of those guys who wanted to be mayor and didn’t get in the meeting, I’d be talking to my lawyer right now.”

Hoping for incompetence

I’m hoping for incompetence. No offense to Perea, but why would a city council appoint someone to be mayor minutes after seeing his résumé for the first time, without a background check or even basic verification of the information on that sheet of paper?

The council should have set up a process that included submitting applications in writing by a certain deadline, public dissemination of that information, time for public feedback, and background checks. Then the council should have held its meeting at the largest school gymnasium in the city. The candidates should have been publicly interviewed at the meeting, in front of anyone who wanted to be present, and taken public input.

Only then should the council should have made its selection.

Such a process would have taken some time, but it would have increased the chances that the council was making a good decision and ensured compliance with the Open Meetings Act. In other words, it’s what should have been done to serve the city’s residents.

Which allegedly hasn’t been the case in Sunland Park for a long time. Many of the city’s leaders are currently facing felony charges that all involve preserving their own power and using the city’s money for personal gain.

Sunland Park needs a new direction. If Perea remains mayor, let’s hope he can quickly grow into the job of building a culture of transparency and accountability – and an attitude of service to the 14,000 residents of the city.

Of course, given Sunland Park’s unpredictability, there’s no certainty Perea will be mayor. Gerardo Hernandez, who lost the March 6 election to Daniel Salinas before Salinas forfeited the seat, is challenging the election results in court, alleging that voter fraud swayed the results. It appears there might actually have enough voter fraud to affect the outcome, so Hernandez might have a case.

And someone else who wanted to ask the council to appoint him or her to the job but was kept out of the meeting by police might sue. Perea’s selection violated the Open Meetings Act and, as the act states, any action taken by a public policymaking body in violation of the act is invalid.

A baby step

I don’t know how this is all going to shake out. But if Perea stays mayor, I’m at least encouraged that he seems to have intelligence and youthful energy. He made a public speaking blunder shortly after being appointed, but he can learn from it and move on.

Similarly, I hope the council learns from this experience and develops a mindset of openness and transparency. For as long as I’ve been a journalist, Sunland Park has intentionally operated in the dark. That has to change, now.

The city council took a baby step by delaying its meeting once and trying to find a bigger venue to accommodate more people. Even if its efforts to comply with the Open Meetings Act failed, let’s hope there’s a spark there that can light a fire.

Doland and the Attorney General’s Office travel around the state teaching local governments how to comply with the Open Meetings and Inspection of Public Records acts. I hope they schedule a training session in Sunland Park as soon as possible. The city needs help. Its residents deserve better.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Martin Heinrich and Hector Balderas are the future leaders of the Democratic Party, and during this U.S. Senate primary they’ve pushed each other to become better public servants.

Some Democrats and Republicans hope their favored candidates can avoid primaries and save money for general election contests. But I’ve always thought the experience gained from a tough primary is worth more than the money avoiding a primary saves.

The Democratic U.S. Senate contest is a good example.

Martin Heinrich is likely to be the party’s nominee. He raised more than $490,000 during the last quarter and ended March with $1.55 million on hand. Hector Balderas, by contrast, raised $127,000 and ended March with $395,000 in the bank.

Balderas never had to raise as much as Heinrich to compete. He has underdog and Hispanic appeal that will provide him a boost on June 5. And he’s getting lots of free media from his work as state auditor to fight corruption in Sunland Park.

But Balderas needed to raise more money than this.

So the likely scenario is that Heinrich will face Republican Heather Wilson in November, and Balderas will start thinking about what he’s going to do when his tenure as state auditor comes to an end in two years. Running for attorney general or governor are possibilities.

The Democratic Party was in disarray following former Gov. Bill Richardson’s scandal-plagued tenure and Diane Denish’s loss to Republican Susana Martinez in the 2010 gubernatorial race.

It’s time to rebuild, and though there are other Democrats on the rise, Heinrich and Balderas are, without question, among the future leaders of the party. Both have grown during this campaign.

Forcing each other to grow

Wilson rarely makes mistakes. She’s smart, quick and sharp. Neither Democrat was ready to face her when the U.S. Senate race began.

Balderas has campaigned as a native New Mexican who grew up in a tiny rural town and in poverty. Even if the polls haven’t reflected it, likeability was in Balderas’ favor because, as his campaign claims, New Mexicans love underdogs.

Had Balderas been able to raise enough money to compete with Heinrich, this would be a much different race.

Balderas has forced Heinrich to hone his message and think beyond the largely metropolitan area he’s represented in the U.S. House. Though Heinrich’s congressional district has included some small towns like Edgewood, there’s a difference between those towns and rural communities like Jal and Wagon Mound, Balderas’ hometown.

Heinrich, who was raised in rural Missouri by working-class parents, had what it took to compete in rural New Mexico, but Balderas pushed him to focus on developing it.

Heinrich has also pushed Balderas. He’s better versed on the issues than the state auditor. He’s more articulate and polished. Though too much of that can be a negative, particularly in rural New Mexico, too little of it can damage a candidate’s credibility.

As the recent profiles in the Albuquerque Journal showed (Balderas’ here and Heinrich’s here), Balderas can now hold his own. I’m looking forward to a TV debate.

During this campaign, Balderas has built a statewide network, raised enough money to run a credible campaign, become more articulate and learned a lot about policy.

Ready to take on Republicans

The Democratic U.S. Senate primary isn’t over. Heinrich’s campaign could implode or Balderas could suddenly raise enough cash to flood the airwaves with as many TV ads as Heinrich will. But that’s not likely.

Heinrich is probably going to face Wilson in November. And he’s in a much better position to compete with her because he had to first defeat Balderas.

Balderas is well-positioned to help his party rebuild following the devastating (for Democrats) 2010 election and in an era in which Martinez remains quite popular. He’s ready to jump into the governor’s race, if that’s what he chooses, and fight for the right to take on Martinez in 2014.

Democrats, these two are the future leaders of your party, and during this campaign they’ve pushed each other to become better public servants. Your party will be better because of it.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

NMPolitics.net’s annual fundraising drive ends two weeks from today. If you’ve been meaning to make a donation but not yet done it, now is the time!

You can make a donation at nmpolitics.net/contribute.

As of today, NMPolitics.net has raised $11,495, or 62 percent of our goal of raising $18,000 by April 30.

If you can afford to do so, please, help us reach our goal. Your donations keep this site going.

You can give a one-time contribution in any amount, or you can sign up to have your credit or debit card automatically charged $10 or $20 each month with the ability to cancel at any time.

Heath Haussamen

Those who sign up for automatic contributions will receive a monthly newsletter containing exclusive analysis and interesting tidbits about what’s happening in New Mexico and news about NMPolitics.net.

Those who give a one-time contribution of at least $120 will also receive the monthly newsletter for a year.

Your contribution will be publicly listed along with others on NMPolitics.net, and it’s not tax-deductible. Click here to read NMPolitics.net’s entire financial contributor policy.

Thanks to those of you who have already given! I hope the rest of you will make donations today at nmpolitics.net/contribute.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Heath Haussamen

Faced with a decision about whether to enforce the law and possibly end the legislative careers of Senate President Pro Tem Tim Jennings and others, the N.M. Supreme Court instead said Tuesday that the law doesn’t really mean what it says.

If the two-party system that controls our government erred on the side of ballot access for minor parties and independents, I’d be more forgiving of the mistake several legislative incumbents and other Democrats and Republicans made this year that could have ended their campaigns.

But the reality is that, in New Mexico and across America, Democrats and Republicans have passed and interpreted laws in ways that make it more difficult for anyone who isn’t a Democrat or Republican to participate in our political process. That’s not fair.

And in New Mexico, we force those taxpaying citizens – who make up 20 percent of the electorate – to help pay for our Democratic and Republican primaries but don’t let them participate. Also not fair.

So I couldn’t help but chuckle when a handful of Democratic and Republican legislators, including Senate President Pro Tem Tim Jennings, left the numbers of the districts they were seeking to represent off nominating petitions a year after they passed a law requiring them and other candidates to include such numbers or face disqualification.

True to form, after the N.M. Supreme Court decided Tuesday to let him and others stay on the ballot, Jennings told Capitol Report New Mexico what was embarrassing wasn’t his flub, but the fact that no synopsis of the 2011 bill or “the things that we had to study this law” listed the new requirement as a “substantive change.”

When someone has been in office so long (33 years for Jennings) that he thinks he doesn’t need to read the 2012 candidate guide to see if there are any changes in the law, and when he blames the bill summary for being inadequate instead of recognizing that a system that doesn’t give him time to read bills is broken, he illustrates arguments in favor of enacting term limits.

They should have known

The new requirement is made clear in this year’s candidate guide, on pages 23 and 24:

“The following information shall be listed in the appropriate space at the top of the nominating petition before the petition has been signed by any voter: the party affiliation of voters signing the petition, the candidate’s name, the candidate’s address, the candidate’s county of residence and the office sought by the candidate, which shall include the district or division of the office sought, if applicable (emphasis here and below is mine). Signatures on a page will not be counted by the filing office at the time the petition is filed if all general information and candidate information in the top one-third of each page has not been completely filled in prior to circulation.”

If that somehow left any doubt, the law is even clearer:

“The following information shall be listed in the appropriate space at the top of the nominating petition before the petition has been signed by any voter: the party affiliation of voters signing the petition, the candidate’s name, the candidate’s address, the candidate’s county of residence and the office sought by the candidate, which shall include the district or division of the office sought, if applicable. A nominating petition, including all signatures on the petition page, shall be invalid if any of the preceding information is not listed before the petition is signed by a voter or if any of the preceding information is altered.”

Those who didn’t know about the new requirement have no one to blame but themselves, as demonstrated by the fact that almost all candidates who filed to run in the primary did include the district or division number of the office they’re seeking on their petitions.

Treating independents, minor parties differently

I can understand the temptation to say such screw-ups should not be fatal to campaigns, that the penalty is overly harsh, that it disenfranchises people who signed those candidates’ petitions.

If the system had a history of showing similar grace when it came to independents and minor parties, I’d buy those arguments.

But the system errs on the side of keeping candidates off the ballot when it comes to minor parties and independents. That’s done to protect the power of the two major parties.

For example, the state requires two petitions before minor party candidates can be placed on the ballot. Then-Rep. Brian Moore, R-Clayton, proposed changing the requirement to only one petition for minor parties in 2007, and had the support of the ACLU.

Democrats killed the bill. A couple of rare access-favoring Republicans defended it, but in general the GOP didn’t like it any more than Democrats.

Minor parties haven’t had any more success in the courts in getting rid of that law. And a current lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court by the Constitution and Green parties seeking to move the deadline for minor parties to submit signatures to qualify as a party, to give them more time to qualify for the ballot, is likely to go nowhere.

Court says the law doesn’t mean what it says

But when the candidacies of Democrats and Republicans are at stake, mountains move to keep them on the ballot. The new petition law is not ambiguous, regardless of what anyone claims. It says candidates have to list the district or division number of the office they’re seeking, if one exists, before they get people to sign their petitions. If they don’t, those petitions are disqualified.

The law was intended to ensure that people signing petitions could be certain they lived in the districts listed on the petitions. That, in theory, would help candidates do a better job of collecting valid signatures.

Some argue that the law is stupid or unnecessary. Some claim it’s unfair. Some say it’s time to get rid of the entire petition process.

But for now, it’s the law. And the Supreme Court, faced with a decision about whether to enforce the law and possibly end the legislative careers of Jennings and others, instead said the law doesn’t really mean what it says.

The two-party system protected itself once again.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed