Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

No mail-in primary, N.M. high court rules, but absentee voting encouraged

absentee ballot
nycshooter/Getty Images

New Mexico did not last long at the center of the campaign to make voting by mail the default setting for elections during the coronavirus pandemic.

What had loomed as a protracted partisan battle over the rules for the state's primaries, similar to the one that caused chaos last week in Wisconsin, was settled decisively Tuesday at the state Supreme Court. The justices unanimously rejected a plan to restrict in-person voting while sending mail-back ballots to almost all registered voters.

The pace of Covid-19 infections in New Mexico is on course to peak within two weeks of the June 2 primary, meaning thousands who don't request and receive an absentee ballot in time could be confronted with a tough choice between exercising their civic duty and guarding their health.


A dozen other states across the county have primaries set for that day. The only contests before then are in Oregon, Idaho and Kansas, and all are relying on voting by mail.

In New Mexico, four of the five people on the high court panel that decided the case are Democrats, and after a four-hour hearing and two hours of deliberations they agreed with the Republicans that state law would be violated under the vote-by-mail proposal.

Instead, the court ordered state and local election authorities to distribute absentee ballot applications to all who have registered to vote by the May 5 deadline. That will be about 1 million registered Republicans and Democrats, because primaries in the state are closed to independents.

In theory, four weeks would be plenty of time to request, receive, complete and return such a bar-coded form.

Democratic Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, the state Democratic Party and 27 of the state's 33 county clerks wanted instead to proactively deliver the ballots and then open 170 polling stations on election day for turning in the votes, completing provisional ballots, and seeking language or disability assistance.

"No one can deny the devastating effect that this virus has had and continues to have on our community," Chief Justice Judith Nakamura said in announcing the court's decision on a videoconference. "However the relief that is requested is specifically prohibited by New Mexico statute ... which says that a mail ballot shall not be delivered by the county clerk to any person other than the applicant for the ballot."

Democrtatic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said late Tuesday her government would work to minimize the number of people who would be compelled to vote or work at the polls on primary day because such behaviors would pose "a grave threat of heightened transmission of the virus."

With the Democratic presidential contest effectively ended, the turnout will mainly affect close races for nominations to judicial positions, the Legislature and Congress, particularly an expensive and hotly contested campaign for an open and reliably blue House seat centered on Santa Fe.

Nakamura is the only justice who joined the court as a Republican. Two justices running for re-election this fall as Democrats recused themselves and were replaced for the case by lower-court Democrats.

A special session of the Legislature to change the law was not a viable option in light of the statewide stay-at-home order that's very likely to be extended through next month.


Read More

multiethnic American voters participating in the US election, showcasing the concept of choice in a democracy

Presidents who lost the popular vote often faced economic turmoil. See the pattern from Harrison to Trump and how a 50-state strategy could change it.

Alan Mazzocco/Getty Images

Path Forward from Economic Consequences of Non-Popular Vote Presidents

While losing the popular vote does not inherently cause economic ruin, the structural political weakness of entering office without a democratic majority mandate often compounded the economic challenges their administrations faced. These terms were marked by distinct economic hardships, structural imbalances, or severe financial crises.

Destabilizing Partisan Protectionism

Keep ReadingShow less
people filling out their ballots at voting booths and submitting their vote.

Independent voters may hand Democrats control of Congress this fall — but as history shows, they'll get nothing in return. Here's how to change that.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Swinging Outcomes Is Not Enough

The midterms are six weeks away, and polls predict that independent voters, who broke for Donald Trump in 2024, are planning on voting for Democrats by wide margins. Among Latinos, the numbers are staggering, to the point that the Republican gerrymanders in Florida and Texas may actually result in Democratic victories.

If the Democrats take control of Congress, it will be because of independents. And what do independents get in return?

Keep ReadingShow less
Diverse People At Voting Booth. Vote Here Elections Sign

A political scientist examines how automatic voter registration is quietly turning non-affiliation into America's largest voting bloc.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

When Neither Party Is the Default: Rethinking Representation As America’s Electorate Changes

For most of my career as a political scientist, representation was the central theme of my teaching and research. Early on, I studied how legislators understood their responsibilities to constituents — whether they saw themselves as delegates carrying out constituent mandates, trustees exercising independent judgment, or politicos combining both. That work asked a question that still matters: What does it mean to represent the public in a changing democracy?

Today I find myself asking a related question: What happens when the electorate changes but the institutions built to represent it do not?

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less