[LWVNM Action] SB 180/a

[Kathleen Burke]

Dear LWVNM Advocates:
Forwarded below is information I received yesterday from the chairperson of a ballot-qualified New Mexico political party. This is related to an amendment made to SB180, now SB180/a.
 --------
Concerns about SB 180/a ELECTION CHANGES.  This bill passed the Senate and is in the HGEIAC, scheduled for Monday, March 6.   
The -- Party has grave concerns that the proposed changes to §1-8-2 NOMINATION BY MINOR POLITICAL PARTY--CONVENTION--DESIGNATED NOMINEES.-- are a direct attack on ballot-qualified minor parties that have already gone through a petition process to obtain ballot qualification.  While we support both allowing candidates the option to decline to have their home addresses published by the Secretary of State and the creation of an electronic petition option, we are troubled by new language proposed on pages 82 and 83 §1-8-2(B)(1) that would effectively double the signature requirements for a minor party candidates by raising the number to the same number required for independent candidates.  It is also unclear with regard to the number of signatures required for a judicial office or the public education commission to which number "would otherwise be required" refers in this context.  We would like the proposed new language in this subsection removed.  The same language appears again in §1-8-2(C)(2) on pages 83 and 84; this language should be removed as well.
Please note that the proposed changes regarding write-in candidates are concerning as well.  SB 180/a would place signature requirements on write-in candidates equivalent to other candidates and still not allow the write-in candidates' names to appear on the ballot.  The signature window difference is not great enough to justify keeping a write-in candidate's name off the ballot if the write-in candidate still has to gather the same number of signatures, particularly for a write-in candidate in a primary election.-------

I believe the amendment to be dissuasive of electoral participation and that it should be removed. 
I believe the LWVNM should publicly withdraw support of this bill until that happens.
I believe I would not be alone among LWVNM members by saying this sort of disadvantaging of non-major party candidates is not something for which the League should be advocating. 

No matter how good the bill may be otherwise, this amendment, and therefore the bill is not something I believe the League should be supporting. 

If this amendment were a stand-alone bill would the League support it? I hope not, but I thought I better ask.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Best Regards,
Kathleen M. Burke
-------------------

Adopted 1969; revised 1999, revised 2001, 2007, 2018, 2021)The League of Women Voters of New Mexico supports   
   - protection of the right of every citizen to vote;
   - verifiable and auditable procedures to guarantee the integrity of all statutory methods of voting in New Mexico;
   - funding to meet the requirements of the law and to serve the needs of the voters to ensure that elections are conducted accurately, fairly, and efficiently;
   - a centralized voter registration and election management system;
   - statewide uniformity in early voting for all elections;
   - an all-inclusive system of voting that allows all registered voters to participate in the primary election so that voters who are not enrolled in a major political party may vote on one ballot per primary without having to enroll in that particular party;
   - more direct citizen involvement in the candidate selection process for special elections to fill a vacancy;
   - consolidation of elections in New Mexico;
   - methods that increase voter participation, including automatic voter registration and same-day voter registration;
   - systems that improve the election experience and provide ease of ballot access including vote-by-mail, supplemented by secure ballot drop boxes and accessible voting centers.
   - amending the State Constitution to allow run-off elections in the case of non-partisan elections.


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/action/attachments/20230301/346be891/attachment.htm>