« (Updated) Tonight: MoveOn's Virtual Presidential Candidate Forum on Iraq | Main | Gov. Richardson Already Backing Homans to Run Against Heather? »
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Evidence of Unfair Apportionment Formula Used by DPNM for Taos County Precincts
Above graphs and story submitted by "Taos County Democrat":
What's wrong with this picture? Note that the apportionment formulas used by the Democratic Party of New Mexico to determine representatives to the Democratic County Central Committee meetings in Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties produced fairly even results, and a fair share of representation per Dem voter to every precinct. However, in Taos County, the State Party used a different formula that produced very uneven results, with significantly more representatives per Democratic voter in some precincts and significantly less representatives per Democratic voter in others.
In Taos County, representation ratio, RR values, vary from 1:26 to 1:94, and the distribution of the uneven results breaks clearly along ethnic lines. Additionally, the under-represented precincts are where high populations of non-Hispanics constitute an equal or majority portion of the Democratic electorate for that precinct.
The apportionments in Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties conform to the Proportional Representation Rule of the State Party, while the Taos County apportionment does not:
RULE 17. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
The policy of the DPNM is to preserve equitable minority representation at all levels of the convention and meeting processes, and to that end committees and delegations to conventions shall be selected, insofar as reasonably possible, to represent proportionally any vote. Except as otherwise provided in these rules or in rules governing a National Convention there shall be no automatic delegates to any convention. -- Rules of the Democratic Party of New Mexico
The State Party is arguing that it assigned a CCC member to every precinct to ensure that all precincts would be represented. Representation is not the issue. It is PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION that is the issue.
For example, Taos County Precinct 09 (Arroyo Hondo) was apportioned 10 CCC representatives and Taos County Precinct 31 (El Valle) was apportioned "1" CCC representative. El Valle has a 26 average Democratic vote to factor, while Arroyo Hondo has an 879 average Democratic vote factor.
If the Democratic Party of New Mexico's precinct apportionment of CCC members for Taos County was a proportional representation of the average Democratic vote for Taos County Precinct 09 (Arroyo Hondo), that precinct would have been apportioned 34 CCC members (879 ÷ 26).
While the State Party is arguing that they were merely assuring representation from each precinct, they actually radically disenfranchised the larger Taos County Precincts in the process by a factor of 3 to 4. The result is in direct opposition to the State Party's own rule.
What's so democratic about a State Democratic party that argues against proportional representation of democratic voters? Easy answer ... nothing. If the Republicans would have done this there would be a revolution.
Editor's Note: Previous posts on this topic can be found here and . To submit a guest post or other information for possible publication on DFNM, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link in the upper left-hand corner of the main page.
April 10, 2007 at 09:45 AM in Democratic Party, Election Reform & Voting, Local Politics | Permalink
Comments
I am a member of the infamous Precinct 9 of Taos County. My husband, Andres Vargas, was elected a CCC delegate, and would have voted for Billy Knight if he had been permitted to vote. The fact that Precinct 9 might have been under-represented pales next to the fact that we were disenfranchised, and not permitted to vote for the Taos County Democratic Party Chair.
What does it matter if your precinct has 10 votes or 24 votes, if none of them can be cast? And not to mention how galling that disenfranchisement was when your precinct was the top democratic "get out the vote" precinct, and thus had the highest number of delegates (had they been permitted to vote). And additionally, that disenfranchisement was sanctioned either directly or tacitly by the central NM Democratic Party. Not only were we disenfranchised by the supporters of Chuby Tafoya, but other precincts, such as the one in which Chuby Tafoya's father was elected precinct chair, crossed out names on ballots and wrote in other names,
and allowed ineligible people to vote, etc etc etc. AND ALL OF THIS WAS SANCTIONED BY OUR NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY COUNTY LEADERSHIP, AND BY THE CENTRAL STATE PARTY. I am at a loss as to why I should continue to support the Democratic Party of Taos County, or the Democratic Party of New Mexico. I was one of those grunts in the last election, and worked the phones at Democratic headquarters and did whatever else was asked of me. I won't in 2008. I'll work for the Democratic nominee, but I'll do it through some other organization (such as MoveOn).
Posted by: Eugenia Hauber | Apr 9, 2007 9:45:05 PM
I agree with Eugenia 100%. If this is how the party works I won't support it anymore. It's that simple. I hope Eugenia has read the other posts linked in the story as they do cover some of the other bad things that happened in Taos.
What we have is a party that doesn't follow its own rules. This has been the case ever since John Wertheim became state chair and Matt Farauto works the same way. This has to end.
Posted by: Taos Voter | Apr 10, 2007 1:07:51 PM
The party's argument suggests that they don't deny using a different method of apportionment in Taos County than they applied to Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties.
As I understand it, the State Party essentially interpreted the rules differently when determining the allocation of Taos by not including precinct chairs in the allocation of county central committee members at the precincts level.
Consequently, each precint, regardless of voter turnout in the last 2 elections, was automatically awarded 1 additional CCC delegate.
If the intent is to protect representation for Democrats in every precinct regardless of their precint's performance in 2004 or 2006, then it would seem the rural character of a county wouldn't be the deciding factor, but rather the lack of Democratic turnout.
This begs the question of whether employing such a practice actually causes us to assume greater party strength in some areas than we actually have.
I wonder if this method of apportionment was applied in any counties on the east side of the state?
Posted by: Gideon | Apr 10, 2007 1:55:19 PM
I think people need to realize just how terrible a tragedy the Taos Chair elections were. Imagine these events if you can:
- The night of the precinct elections one of Billy Knight's supporters gave an impassioned speech about Knight's considerable accomplishments as Chair. THE CONDO HE BUILT WAS THEN BURNED TO THE GROUND. Is that a coincidence?
- At the Credentials meeting the person challenging one precint, left the meeting abruptly AFTER A DISCUSSION ABOUT HIS LICENSES. Is that a coincidence?
- At the Credentials meeting one of the Tafoya party operatives made a motion to supress the physical evidence of ballot tampering and to remove the credentials of the person charged with keeping the ballots, who bravely stepped forward with the altered ballots in hand. The grounds for the motion, that it is a secret ballot were specious on their face, as they do not contain the name of the voter. HOWEVER, THIS MID-DEBATE, OUT-OF-ORDER MOTION WAS QUICKLY CARRIED FORWARD BY THE MEETING CHAIR, MR. BECK, PARLIMENTARIAN OF THE STATE DEM. PARTY. Is this a coincidence?
The Tafoya party and very possible the State Dem. Party wanted the Taos progressives gone. There's no other rational explanation.
Posted by: Taos Dem | Apr 10, 2007 3:25:27 PM
This is what happens when a party doesn't have clear rules and doesn't follow the ones it does have, from the state chairman on down. I'm an SCC member and had to watch John Wertheim run the SCC meetings like a rude weasle. He ridiculed people who had the floor to talk, he refused to act on motions passed by the members, he lied about party finances and gave away more than $40,000 to the slimy boyfriend of the then executive director. When he was called on it he lied some more. He yelled people down. He made up his own rules. This Taos situation is an even worse example and when rules aren't followed this is what happens, situations worsen and become poison.
No matter how much people complained Wertheim and Richardson stuck together on this and refused to follow the rules. They still are apparently. Where does it end?
Posted by: Liberal Democrat | Apr 10, 2007 3:35:49 PM
The apportionment is issue is bad enough. But what's worse is how the whole election went down! There were fishy goings on in several districts. The worst was in Talpa where votes were actually changed. Let me repeat, VOTES WERE ACTUALLY CHANGED!! Doesnt anybody get that? Someone went through, crossed out the names written on the ballots and wrote in another name. I think these have been posted on the web. In precint 09, there were no problems. The protests against PRecint 09 were baseless. It was the cleanest election in the county.
What I dont understand, and what makes me think that the State Party was complicit in this crime, is that when it came time for the credentials committee meeting, the guy from the state party wouldnt even look at the complaints and evidence of wrongdoing from precints other than 09. Let me be clear, the protests brought by supporters of Billy Knight were dismissed out of hand. The one brought by supporters of Tafoya, although baseless, was given full attention and that precinct (09) was then hung out to dry. And what an insult to those people when, at the county meeting, they were not allowed to vote for County Chair and then were forcefully reinstated (against the wishes of the precint chair and 7 of the 10 electors from that precinct). Their power was taken away when it matter and given back when it didnt matter at all.
What a complete farce. As for me, I've very nearly ready to quit the Dem party. Richardson better wake up on this. Udall too. THOUSANDS of Taos Co. voters were disenfrachised by this process and people in this county are sick of being kept out by the old, mafia boys that run the local party. Richardson and Udall might very well have a full on revolt on thier hands here with thousands going for a third party. People are that upset.
Posted by: Another Taos Dem | Apr 10, 2007 4:45:28 PM
I agree with all the criticisms of what went on in Taos made above. It really is enough to make me change my voter registration-and I've been a Democrat all my life. If nothing is done it will show me the state party people could care less about those who do all the grunt work for the party and the candidates. They have disrespected all who were thrown out of the process by very shady actions by the Tafoya people.
Posted by: Me Too | Apr 10, 2007 4:50:12 PM
This was a fixed selection, pure and simple. One would have to ascribe improper motives to such egregious behavior. If Richardson does not instruct his political guys to fix this by overturning the selection and opening it up to a new round under close supervision, he is acquiescing in this, which will undercut any chance he has for broad local support behind his "favorite son" candidacy here.
Posted by: chinshihtang | Apr 10, 2007 8:29:16 PM
I guess that we can all say that we knew that politics was nasty when we decided to get into it. I too am smarting from a little issue in my ward in the Albuquerque north valley. I would like to ask that all of us take that anger and use it to fix the problems. A lot of change happened in the last two years in the New Mexico Democratic Party so we know that change is possible. I believe what we are seeing is a result of the changes that already happened. We cannot get mad and quit. They win! This is how corruption grows, when good people get smacked hard and walk away. We have to stay and to smack back. We need to keep our ethics and our dignity and we need to keep fighting, it is a good fight.
Thank you all for what you have been through. Please stay and work with me so that being a Democrat can be a good thing, so that being involved in politics can be an honorable thing!
Posted by: Terry Riley | Apr 11, 2007 7:58:21 AM
In the comments by "taosdem" it is inferred that possibly a fire that destroyed a condominium was related to the election. This isn't true. The cause of the fire has been determined to be electrical in nature. Yes, positive comments about Knight were made, but the fire is unrelated.
Posted by: Alan Macrae | Apr 11, 2007 3:56:56 PM
Isn’t it the responsibility of the County Party Chairman to approve the apportionment and make sure all the Precinct Chairman know what that apportionment is? According to the by-laws: Rule 10-3.E
The County Chairperson shall:
: apportion the County Central Committee in accordance with Rule 9-2.C.3.
If the apportionment was incorrect why did the county chairman send a printed copy of the apportionment to all the people in the party organization?
Was the county chairman Billy Knight in cahoots with the evil state party, alongside the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and the Mafia, in some elaborate conspiracy to oust his own superior organization of neo yuppie/hippies? Was Tafoya the new initiate of this unholy alliance of conspiratorial geniuses in a scheme to disenfranchise Anglo voters in Taos? Was it fixed? Was the whole precinct election mathematically engineered for the progressives (former Green Party Members) to lose their butts in a world of back door deals and smoky rooms?
Or maybe this whole thing is blown out of proportion and the cat that posted this apportionment business is some Knight supporter who is sad because their guy lost and they want to cry foul after the game has been played and done (not only that but all the fans have left the stadium; the parking lot is completely empty).
According to this posting the apportionment anomaly was probably worked out with the evil state party and the county chair and they agreed upon it before the county chair mailed it out to everyone. Also if they had gone with another apportionment or the “correct” apportionment as suggested by the posting above, doesn’t that mean that the precincts would have had more delegates? And wouldn’t that mean that Knight would’ve lost twice as bad, (assuming that Tafoya organized accordingly)?
The posting states: “the under-represented precincts are where high populations of non-Hispanics constitute an equal or majority portion of the Democratic electorate for that precinct” and claims that the apportionment “radically disenfranchised the larger Taos County Precincts” It doesn’t seem that bad. So the big precincts and educated affluent Anglos didn’t have even more of an advantage. Big Deal. Don’t get your panties in a bunch. Chill out. Worst things have happened.
The posting is sending a message of extreme criticism that is based on a hyper iteration of the by-laws, however there isn’t any real outcry and it seems like passive aggressive vindictiveness and the type of bickering old people (ages 36-100) do that turns off young people like me.
We young folk (18-35) don’t want to be part of your new or renewed political life and we sure don’t want to stand around and watch you argue about whether precinct 9 or 10 or 258 has three or six delegates, that stuff just seems so irrelevant to young voters and there is no real message other than “we here at the Democratic Party are a bunch of old boring people in your community that like to bicker about trivial things because really, we are taking all this politics way to personal and are to prideful to even pay attention to you young folk and the real issues like why the in the world a college education doesn’t get me a job any more, and why do I have to inherit this screwed up Social Security problem and extremely large National debt.”. All this mess with the apportionment is turning us off, when we need to be turned on.
If the cat that posted this whole “fraudulent” apportionment scenario is not one of Knight’s disgruntled supporters and they are truly a champion of “proportional representation” then why not drop all this precinct business and shoot for the stars. Sue the US House of Representatives and US Senate and get us some more representatives. Screw the precinct delegates, fight to get us some more electoral votes so we can deliver them to the next Democratic president. Don’t get your priorities all screwed up and for god sake’s chill out before you suck the life out of the party.
Alec Paul
Filmmaker/ Taos Native/ Taos County Voter / Fledgling Political Activist
Posted by: Alec Paul | Apr 11, 2007 6:08:43 PM
Alec, I wish it were so simple as you are stating. The democracy as it is set up is like concentric circles each one tied to another, even from the lowly precinct level. It all does matter. Sounds like you should chill out a bit.
As I understand it, the apportionment formula was brought to the attention of the state.
I agree that there are massive issues going on within this country which indeed affect the planet. Funny you do not mention in your top list of problems: the war, climate change, and health care.
The points being challenged and argued are the base of our Democracy. The work of change within politics is slow and at times painful, heck many many people have died from it. It is about power.
Posted by: Mary Ellen | Apr 12, 2007 7:34:57 AM
