It’s part of our DNA to say that voting is the backbone of democracy. We keep saying this even as years of research shows us that money has controlled the outcome of elections ever since elections started in the 18th century. See, for example, Carl Becker’s little book Modern Democracy (1950) or google the data on campaign expenses and winners in the Presidential elections or the Senate elections.
But as I look over the present ballot, I wonder what this exercise of our choice really amounts to. I’m staring at Constitutional Amendment 3, which would allow “the dean of the University of New Mexico school of law to appoint a designee to the Judicial Nominating Commission.” Do you know what this means? It could mean that the dean of the law school can appoint a member of the Commission which then gets to nominate judges. I don’t know why I should give the dean, who is not an elected person and therefore not responsible to me in any way, this power. Or, maybe it means that the dean can appoint a candidate for the Commission to consider for judgeship. Well, if it means that, I also don’t know why he or she should have that power.
However, I decided that I really didn’t know anything about this commission, so I look up Article 6, Section 35 (in the 2022 edition), and by golly, neither of my former understandings of the ballot wording that I am to make a choice about is correct. What the ballot means is that the dean can appoint someone to take his place on the Nominating Commission. The dean is constitutionally designated as the non-voting presiding chairperson of the Commission, whose members are appointed by a bunch of legal specialists. This amendment allows the dean to appoint someone to take his place on that Commission, where in case of a tie he or she can cast a tie-breaking vote and where his or her responsibility is to see to an even balance between Democrats and Republican members. I still don’t know why the dean is absolved of doing the constitutionally assigned task and why a substitute, whose qualifications are unspecified, should be constitutionally allowed.
So I ask, do we know what we are voting for? Take Constitutional Amendment 2 for another example. Remember that we are speaking of the highest law of the state. It asks simply whether we want to “increase” the property tax exemption for veterans. Increase from what to what? Reading Article 8, Section 5, I found that we already give veterans a $4,000 tax exemption. Some reading online also showed that the Section originated after the First World War (when returning soldiers were in dire need) and that until recently the exemption was not for all veterans but only those that served in combat duty. But the real question is still what we are being asked since a “choice” should mean that a sum is specified; otherwise, the “increase” is just wide open and no choice at all. What does it mean to put the word “increase” in the Constitution? It doesn’t even authorize the legislature to make that decision. Who does get to say how much of an increase, if we vote the amendment in?
Then, there is the County Flood Control District approval, which nowhere tells us that all those protections the ballot describes are or may be already part of the state’s flood control duties assigned to the local Flood Control Commissioner for which we already are taxed and that this is a second tax for maybe the same service.
And, of course, there are all those bond issues. We don’t allow the government, whether elected or appointed, to borrow money in our name, yet we are given these choices with the tiniest bit of information so that our vote gives the government a signed blank check.
What is all this election business about anyway?
Holy Carp!
You, sir, are starting to sound like a libertarian in favor of transparency and fiscal responsibility.
Might yet be hope…
Sorry. I have only a foggy notion of what any political label means. I avoid their use and try not to use them to muddy up my view of what happens.
I have all the same questions on tjhs and every ballot.
If I don’t know wth it means and “interested parties” don’t feel the need to lobby for my vote and explain wth it means, I vote against.
And I always vote against higher education funding. Why? Let’s get our kids to graduate high school and with the ability to read, write and add/substract first!
That flood district thing is just another next level irresponsible, expensive and unnecessary something by our incompetent, corrupt and insular local govt. I just don’t know wth their angle is..just don’t know. Maybe someone on the commission has a nephew they want to give a do nothing job to? I have no idea.
Amen Max.
And what does it mean when 5 of the 6 local offices have only one candidate? It sounds to me more like we in Sierra county live in a volunteerocracy not a democracy. Makes you wonder why the county board of commissioners would work to establish an arroyo flood control district that would need 5 additional volunteers to spend our tax dollars.
There were two ballot measures regarding property tax exemptions for veterans. My understanding is that one of them would change the current exemption for 100% disabled veterans to allow a commensurate % exemption for disabled veterans with a lower than 100% disability rating, i.e., a 30% disabled veteran (which my husband is) would qualify for a 30% exemption. I voted “yes”. The other one was to allow some kind of a property tax exemption for ALL honorably discharged veterans. Because I honestly didn’t understand that one, I left it blank.
I don’t have time to explain all of the others, but I’d suggest that folks who are really concerned perhaps visit the nearest chapter of League of Women Voters, and they should be able to find non-partisan explanations of most if not all of the various ballot measures on this very lengthy ballot.