Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less